# Born Again Cult



## Highlander

Let's educate ourselves to try to better understand where our 2-3 BAC come from.  There seem to be some phycological isues involved that we should consider.  

Born Again Brainwashing (Persuasion and Brainwashing Techniques Being Used On The Public Today) June 6, 2005

How old is this born again Christian cult that is in the USA? - Yahoo! Answers

Are Her Born Again Christian Relatives Caught Up in a Cult?

COMMONLY USED BRAINWASHING TECHNIQUES

Google Answers: born again

Born again christians [Archive] - JREF Forum


----------



## Starman3000m

Highlander said:


> Let's educate ourselves to try to better understand where our 2-3 BAC come from.  There seem to be some phycological isues involved that we should consider.
> 
> Born Again Brainwashing (Persuasion and Brainwashing Techniques Being Used On The Public Today) June 6, 2005
> 
> How old is this born again Christian cult that is in the USA? - Yahoo! Answers
> 
> Are Her Born Again Christian Relatives Caught Up in a Cult?
> 
> COMMONLY USED BRAINWASHING TECHNIQUES
> 
> Google Answers: born again
> 
> Born again christians [Archive] - JREF Forum



A person is born again through the spiritual regeneration of the Holy Spirit of God into their lives. This is what Jesus spoke of when He said "Ye Must Be Born Again" (John 3:3-7) also ref. (1 Peter 1:23)

There are many verses in the Bible that suggest that the "born again" process is what changes the heart of a person and brings the true understanding of a one-on-one relationship between the believer and God through faith in the New Testament Jesus Christ. Some: 
(Matthew 3:11) (Romans 8:11) (1 Corinthians 3:16) (1 Corinthians 12:13)
(John 14:26) (John 15:26) (John 16:7) (1 John 2:27) (Ephesians 5:18)

Your attempt to refute Jesus' statement that a person must literally be born again of the Spirit or that "born again" is nothing more than a cult is treading on dangerous waters, Highlander, since you are denying the spiritual empowerment that is given by the Holy Spirit of God. Such denial is construed as "blasphemy" against the Holy Spirit. Ref:
(Mark 3:28-29) (Luke 12:10)

If we are wrong, you should care less, but if being born again of The Holy Spirit is true, as Jesus declared, then I would pray that you reconsider your position in this matter. Please take it to God in sincere prayer.


----------



## Highlander

Starman3000m said:


> A person is born again through the spiritual generation of the Holy Spirit of God into their lives. This is what Jesus spoke of when He said "Ye Must Be Born Again" (John 3:3-7) also ref. (1 Peter 1:23)
> 
> There are many verses in the Bible that suggest that the "born again" process is what changes the heart of a person and brings the true understanding of a one-on-one relationship between the believer and God through faith in the New Testament Jesus Christ.
> 
> Your attempt to refute Jesus' statement that a person must literally be born again of the Spirit or that "born again" is nothing more than a cult is treading on dangerous waters, Highlander, since you are denying the spiritual empowerment that is given by the Holy Spirit of God. Such denial is construed as "blasphemy" against the Holy Spirit. Ref:
> (Mark 3:28-29) (Luke 12:10)
> 
> If we are wrong, you should care less, but if being born again of The Holy Spirit is true, as Jesus declared, then I would pray that you reconsider your position in this matter. Please take it to God in sincere prayer.



OK Starman


----------



## Starman3000m

Highlander said:


> OK Starman



I'm not the one you should address on this issue. There is Only One Truth and the issue is with God regarding whether the "born again" process is True or a cult as you mock through this post. You have actually taken issue with Jesus of the New Testament not with me. I leave it to your discretion what to believe but you cannot ever say that you were never presented with what Jesus (not those who are born again) has to say in this matter. I pray that you reconsider your position on this and prayerfully take it to God. He is Loving, Understanding and Forgiving.


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> I'm not the one you should address on this issue. There is Only One Truth and the issue is with God regarding whether the "born again" process is True or a cult as you mock through this post. You have actually taken issue with Jesus of the New Testament not with me. I leave it to your discretion what to believe but you cannot ever say that you were never presented with what Jesus (not those who are born again) has to say in this matter. I pray that you reconsider your position on this and prayerfully take it to God. He is Loving, Understanding and Forgiving.



You're caught in a web of your own making.  You challenge every other belief as a cult, you've run from every methodical discussion of the issues, and when you run out of prattle you say, "take it up with God".


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> You're caught in a web of your own making.  You challenge every other belief as a cult, you've run from every methodical discussion of the issues, and when you run out of prattle you say, "take it up with God".



Who else should one take this up with?

*For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;* (1 Timothy 2:5)

*There is Only One Truth!*


----------



## itsbob

Starman3000m said:


> Who else should one take this up with?
> 
> *For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;* (1 Timothy 2:5)
> 
> *There is Only One Truth!*



You must have been an easy mark. Luckily the Davidians didn't get you you first.


----------



## Starman3000m

itsbob said:


> You must have been an easy mark. Luckily the Davidians didn't get you you first.





Oh they tried but they refused to use the True Word of God as the Only Weapon of Truth and insisted that assault rifles, polygamy and living in a fortified compound was more their style.


----------



## sk8enscars

Highlander said:


> Let's educate ourselves to try to better understand where our 2-3 BAC come from.  There seem to be some phycological isues involved that we should consider.
> 
> Born Again Brainwashing (Persuasion and Brainwashing Techniques Being Used On The Public Today) June 6, 2005
> 
> How old is this born again Christian cult that is in the USA? - Yahoo! Answers
> 
> Are Her Born Again Christian Relatives Caught Up in a Cult?
> 
> COMMONLY USED BRAINWASHING TECHNIQUES
> 
> Google Answers: born again
> 
> Born again christians [Archive] - JREF Forum



What exactly is the point of this post?  To find out more about something you're confused about?  To discuss something you believe in?  To bash other people's beliefs?  Either way... your sources are laughable.  Yahoo answers, Google answers, 2 forums much like this one, a "Dear Abby" column and a nut job author of New Age books.  If you really want to create a stir just do an abortion poll.  duh.


----------



## Highlander

Starman3000m said:


> I'm not the one you should address on this issue. There is Only One Truth and the issue is with God regarding whether the "born again" process is True or a cult as you mock through this post. You have actually taken issue with Jesus of the New Testament not with me. I leave it to your discretion what to believe but you cannot ever say that you were never presented with what Jesus (not those who are born again) has to say in this matter. I pray that you reconsider your position on this and prayerfully take it to God. He is Loving, Understanding and Forgiving.



You're funny.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Highlander said:


> Let's educate ourselves to try to better understand where our 2-3 BAC come from.  There seem to be some phycological isues involved that we should consider.


So are you saying that it is wrong to be born again?


----------



## itsbob

ItalianScallion said:


> So are you saying that it is wrong to be born again?



Baptism, in any church, is "Being Born Again".

Being placed below the surface of the water represents death and the dying of your current self and spirit, and surfacing from the water represents your resurrection (or being born again) in the Spirit of Christ.

Some friggin genius just took the meaning and made it into a cult.. it's actually easy to do if you can find enough weakminded individiuals to follow your lead.  There's evidence of this from Coast to Coast throughout our country.. The Davidians.. The Scientologists.. The Hari Krishnas.. The Purple Sheeters.. Jim Jones.. the list is endless.. Born Agains are just an addendum to the list.


----------



## Highlander

ItalianScallion said:


> So are you saying that it is wrong to be born again?



Ummm...THat would be no!  So, would you say it's wrong to be a Catholic?


----------



## Starman3000m

itsbob said:


> Baptism, in any church, is "Being Born Again".
> 
> Being placed below the surface of the water represents death and the dying of your current self and spirit, and surfacing from the water represents your resurrection (or being born again) in the Spirit of Christ.
> 
> Some friggin genius just took the meaning and made it into a cult.. it's actually easy to do if you can find enough weakminded individiuals to follow your lead.  There's evidence of this from Coast to Coast throughout our country.. The Davidians.. The Scientologists.. The Hari Krishnas.. The Purple Sheeters.. Jim Jones.. the list is endless.. Born Agains are just an addendum to the list.



Wrong! Although some may view this as you do, "born again" in the manner described by Jesus is not being baptized in water. Sure it is the representation of being dead, buried and rising again in faith - but whose faith? Any church can "baptize" into their doctrinal faith and yet not agree with the teachings of Jesus. Additionally, water baptism is only a symbolic gesture that anyone can do whether they are believing in the process or not. 
Since anybody can do it, that is only a symbolic practice that bears no authority for guaranteeing Salvation at all.

However, being "Born Again" in the manner that Jesus referred to is literally receiving the indwelling Holy Spirit of God into your life. This is the beginning of a new way of life that grows daily under God's Divine guidance. It is through this process and this process alone that one becomes a "Child of God."  A born again Child of God no longer belongs to the ideological control of this world's systems, religious or secular, that are taught by men and not by the Spirit of God.


----------



## PsyOps

Highlander said:


> OK Starman



Look, you either believe this or you don't.  Because you don't doesn't warrant degrading others that do.  Your thinking is not superior in any way.  I think a respectful rebuttle to Star's point would serve you better than just calling him a kook.


----------



## itsbob

Starman3000m said:


> Wrong! Although some may view this as you do, "born again" in the manner described by Jesus is not being baptized in water. Sure it is the representation of being dead, buried and rising again in faith - but whose faith? Any church can "baptize" into their doctrinal faith and yet not agree with the teachings of Jesus. Additionally, water baptism is only a symbolic gesture that anyone can do whether they are believing in the process or not.
> Since anybody can do it, that is only a symbolic practice that bears no authority for guaranteeing Salvation at all.
> 
> However, being "Born Again" in the manner that Jesus referred to is literally receiving the indwelling Holy Spirit of God into your life. This is the beginning of a new way of life that grows daily under God's Divine guidance. It is through this process and this process alone that one becomes a "Child of God."  A born again Child of God no longer belongs to the control of this world's systems, religious or secular, that are taught by men and not by the Spirit of God.




That is your churches or your interpretation of the bible..

It's no more correct than anyone else's...


Though it's considerably wronger..


----------



## PsyOps

itsbob said:


> Though it's considerably wronger..


----------



## ItalianScallion

itsbob said:


> Baptism, in any church, is "Being Born Again".
> Being placed below the surface of the water represents death and the dying of your current self and spirit, and surfacing from the water represents your resurrection (or being born again) in the Spirit of Christ.


First off, show me where that is written in the Bible that you don't believe in.
And, if water can cleanse us from sin, Jesus died on a cross for what purpose Bob? 


Highlander said:


> Ummm...THat would be no!  So, would you say it's wrong to be a Catholic?


I have to disagree with you here. Your posting of this says you do...
My position: I fail to see how any truly born again person can stay in the Catholic church. I believe that @ 40% of their doctrine is right on but the other 60% is deadly wrong and dangerous. This is what I go after in my posts. If they were just a bit off doctrinally and it was on secondary issues, I wouldn't even bother but I know too many people who are professing Catholics who are no more saved than the man in the moon. Claiming every day to be Catholic but then speaking or acting against the Bible and it's teachings. I know, I was one of them!


----------



## libby

> I know, I was one of them!




Does it ever occur to you that it is YOU who has/had the problem?  If you had the relationship with Jesus Christ that you should have, you would have been in awe of the Eucharist.  That Jesus continues to abide in us, so that we might abide in Him.
That Jesus, knowing our human weaknesses and our need to see,hear, taste and touch to believe, gave us Sacraments to aid in our belief.
Do many, in fact most, people go through the motions of the Sacraments, without loving and serving Jesus Christ?  Yep!  And _let me be the first one to say _that the leaders within the Catholic Church are not doing what they should be doing in many, many ways.  That, however, does not change my wholehearted belief in the doctrines handed down since the Apostolic age.
If you can separate Judas' errors from the Truths Jesus taught, then you should be able understand how I can separate doctrines from the priests and bishops who have failed.


----------



## foodcritic

Highlander said:


> OK Starman



That's an intelligent response


----------



## foodcritic

Starman3000m said:


> A person is born again through the spiritual regeneration of the Holy Spirit of God into their lives. This is what Jesus spoke of when He said "Ye Must Be Born Again" (John 3:3-7) also ref. (1 Peter 1:23)
> 
> There are many verses in the Bible that suggest that the "born again" process is what changes the heart of a person and brings the true understanding of a one-on-one relationship between the believer and God through faith in the New Testament Jesus Christ. Some:
> (Matthew 3:11) (Romans 8:11) (1 Corinthians 3:16) (1 Corinthians 12:13)
> (John 14:26) (John 15:26) (John 16:7) (1 John 2:27) (Ephesians 5:18)
> 
> Your attempt to refute Jesus' statement that a person must literally be born again of the Spirit or that "born again" is nothing more than a cult is treading on dangerous waters, Highlander, since you are denying the spiritual empowerment that is given by the Holy Spirit of God. Such denial is construed as "blasphemy" against the Holy Spirit. Ref:
> (Mark 3:28-29) (Luke 12:10)
> 
> If we are wrong, you should care less, but if being born again of The Holy Spirit is true, as Jesus declared, then I would pray that you reconsider your position in this matter. Please take it to God in sincere prayer.




This is a very well put together answer.  I might that anyone who claims they are a Christian must have been "born again" for the reasons you cite.  Why some have made the term "born again" to be pejorative I don't know.  It is probable done out of ignorance of the  One who originally proposed it.

Catholics can be born again just like protestants.  This is  a personal decision that should be shared with others.

All this talk of being born again as somehow associated with a cult is just demagoguery.  You either know very little about the bible or church.  Cults have followers of people.  Christians follow Jesus.   Billy Graham would be my example.  For years he rallied people to the cause of Christ.....not himself.  He pointed to the true God and that right from the Bible.  

Any pastor should do the same.  Do some charlatans come along...of course.  That is where the Bible and discernment come in.


----------



## ItalianScallion

libby said:


> Does it ever occur to you that it is YOU who has/had the problem?  If you had the relationship with Jesus Christ that you should have, you would have been in awe of the Eucharist.
> Do many, in fact most, people go through the motions of the Sacraments, without loving and serving Jesus Christ?  And _let me be the first one to say _that the leaders within the Catholic Church are not doing what they should be doing in many, many ways.


Why doesn't it ever occur to you that it is you who still have the problem? By RCC standards you are right on. By God's standards, you're off a bit. Which standards do you think God used for His judgment? I got mine solved and my eyes are now opened. If I could still tolerate the RCC methods and teachings, I would be there today but, since they go against much of what God teaches, I am not. 
I was one of those who "went through all of the motions of the sacraments without loving and serving Christ". Now I do the latter and NOT the former.
Why do you think that the leaders within the RCC are not doing what they should?


----------



## Starman3000m

foodcritic said:


> This is a very well put together answer.  I might that anyone who claims they are a Christian must have been "born again" for the reasons you cite.  Why some have made the term "born again" to be pejorative I don't know.  It is probable done out of ignorance of the  One who originally proposed it.
> 
> Catholics can be born again just like protestants.  This is  a personal decision that should be shared with others.
> 
> All this talk of being born again as somehow associated with a cult is just demagoguery.  You either know very little about the bible or church.  Cults have followers of people.  Christians follow Jesus.   Billy Graham would be my example.  For years he rallied people to the cause of Christ.....not himself.  He pointed to the true God and that right from the Bible.
> 
> Any pastor should do the same.  Do some charlatans come along...of course.  That is where the Bible and discernment come in.



Thank you very much for your comments. Your insight into our need to trust the Bible and have discernment is right on! It is only when we are born again that we are really able to have and receive that discernment; not by our knowledge but by the Wisdom that God reveals of His Word to us, rightly dividing truth from error. Thanks again.

*But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. *(1 Corinthians 2:14)


----------



## Highlander

ItalianScallion said:


> First off, show me where that is written in the Bible that you don't believe in.
> And, if water can cleanse us from sin, Jesus died on a cross for what purpose Bob?
> 
> I have to disagree with you here. Your posting of this says you do...
> My position: I fail to see how any truly born again person can stay in the Catholic church. I believe that @ 40% of their doctrine is right on but the other 60% is deadly wrong and dangerous. This is what I go after in my posts. If they were just a bit off doctrinally and it was on secondary issues, I wouldn't even bother but I know too many people who are professing Catholics who are no more saved than the man in the moon. Claiming every day to be Catholic but then speaking or acting against the Bible and it's teachings. I know, I was one of them!



You two nut cases are  very entertaining.  So, I'm supposed to believe that the 1.3 billion Catholics in this world have it all wrong and a bunch of so called born agains have it all figured out.  You two are really delusional.   Good luck with your life and the way YOU choose to practice your religion.


----------



## Starman3000m

Highlander said:


> You two nut cases are  very entertaining.  So, I'm supposed to believe that the 1.3 billion Catholics in this world have it all wrong and a bunch of so called born agains have it all figured out.  You two are really delusional.   Good luck with your life and the way YOU choose to practice your religion.



Hmmm...apparently you must really believe that there is "safety in numbers"

Jesus never said that any denomination (even at 1.3 Billion strong) was the gate that leads to Salvation; Jesus said He is the Only Way:

*Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it*. (Matthew 7:13-14)


----------



## Highlander

Starman3000m said:


> Hmmm...apparently you must really believe that there is "safety in numbers"
> 
> Jesus never said that any denomination (even at 1.3 Billion strong) was the gate that leads to Salvation; Jesus said He is the Only Way:
> 
> *Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it*. (Matthew 7:13-14)



Again,  thanks for the entertainment, Oh Wise One!


----------



## PsyOps

Highlander said:


> Again,  thanks for the entertainment, Oh Wise One!



Star's answer was a good one.  Are you beating up on religions or someone's faith in God?  There is a difference between the two.


----------



## foodcritic

Highlander said:


> Again,  thanks for the entertainment, Oh Wise One!



I must be confused.  All you have done is rant and rave.  The answers to your questions have been given, based on the bible and in context.  

Your only response is to call names and  

That, my friend, is not a valid argument.


----------



## jetmonkey

Zeus is my homeboy.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Highlander said:


> You two nut cases are  very entertaining.  So, I'm supposed to believe that the 1.3 billion Catholics in this world have it all wrong and a bunch of so called born agains have it all figured out.  You two are really delusional.   Good luck with your life and the way YOU choose to practice your religion.


Let me splain more 2 u:
Never did I say that ALL Catholics were unsaved. I know some really great people who, I believe, are saved but why they stay in the Catholic church is beyond me. I couldn't take it any longer. 
One friend of mine I asked said that he doesn't believe in confessing to a priest, nor praying to Mary, nor many of the other things they teach but he likes the atmosphere there. :shrug:
WHY the saved stay there is beyond me. That's what I'm saying. You can be saved and still be a Catholic but many Catholics are not saved just because they're in that organization. Ok Lucy?


----------



## sk8enscars

Highlander said:


> You two nut cases are  very entertaining.  So, I'm supposed to believe that the 1.3 billion Catholics in this world have it all wrong and a bunch of so called born agains have it all figured out.  You two are really delusional.   Good luck with your life and the way YOU choose to practice your religion.



You must be a politician.


----------



## itsbob

ItalianScallion said:


> First off, show me where that is written in the Bible that you don't believe in.
> And, if water can cleanse us from sin, Jesus died on a cross for what purpose Bob?
> 
> !



Why was Jesus Baptized??  

Secondly, Jesus didn't die on the cross.

I don't know where I said baptism cleanses us from sin, please point that out to me.. What I said was baptism was a representation of being born again, and the resurrection..   

I do know, I've tried to put Born Again Space Shots in the Army, to find out they were felons.. their reply "That doesn't count, that was before I was born Again.. "  Morons..


----------



## ItalianScallion

itsbob said:


> Why was Jesus Baptized??
> 
> Secondly, Jesus didn't die on the cross.
> 
> I don't know where I said baptism cleanses us from sin, please point that out to me.. What I said was baptism was a representation of being born again, and the resurrection.


Being born again means that your sins have been "washed away" or forgiven.
Jesus was baptized in order to "fulfill all righteousness", be obedient to the Scriptures and be an example to others. He had no need of being "born again" or saved because He is sinless.
JESUS DIDN'T DIE ON THE CROSS????  That statement is very dangerous to your health.


----------



## itsbob

ItalianScallion said:


> Being born again means that your sins have been "washed away" or forgiven.
> Jesus was baptized in order to "fulfill all righteousness", be obedient to the Scriptures and be an example to others. He had no need of being "born again" or saved because He is sinless.
> JESUS DIDN'T DIE ON THE CROSS????  That statement is very dangerous to your health.



No, Jesus was NOT sinless.. That maybe what YOUR church believes, but again, your church is the wrongest yet.

Not even Jesus is without sin, or he would have thrown the first stone now wouldn't he??  

You are really in deep.. Doubt there is time, or anyone cares to save you..


----------



## itsbob

ItalianScallion said:


> JESUS DIDN'T DIE ON THE CROSS????  That statement is very dangerous to your health.



Truth hurts when it's supposed to.


----------



## vraiblonde

Highlander said:


> Let's educate ourselves to try to better understand where our 2-3 BAC come from.  There seem to be some phycological isues involved that we should consider.



How does this affect your life and why do you freakin' care?


----------



## hotcoffee

itsbob said:


> Why was Jesus Baptized??  ..



According to the Gospel of John....  John the Baptist was preaching about the fact that Jesus was coming....  I think I read that John the Baptist didn't recognize Jesus as the Christ until the Spirit of the Lord came down for Jesus... and then once John the Baptist saw that... he testified that Jesus was the Christ....

So....  Jesus was Baptised to bring on the Spirit...  or that's how I see it...



itsbob said:


> Secondly, Jesus didn't die on the cross. ..



We've seen that Jesus walked on water, calmed the waters, and immediately moved a boat miles to it's destination.... He could have stepped down from the cross...

By allowing Himself to die on the Cross, He allowed them to destroy the temple of God... and by rising again in three days... He rebuilt the temple....

Am I right?  Just call me a Jesus Fan!


----------



## Highlander

vraiblonde said:


> How does this affect your life and why do you freakin' care?



I am Catholic.  These two goofs are always trying to teach "us" how wrong the Catholic church is.  That's why I care.  I think they are wrong and I don't appreciate their arrogance.  They think they have all the answers which makes me sick.  So, does that answer your question, Vrai?


----------



## ItalianScallion

itsbob said:


> No, Jesus was NOT sinless.. That maybe what YOUR church believes, but again, your church is the wrongest yet.
> Not even Jesus is without sin, or he would have thrown the first stone now wouldn't he??


Please tell me what "group" of beliefs you belong to Bob. Your theology is wackier than almost any I've heard. 
That example about Jesus throwing the first stone is off the hook...


----------



## toppick08

Highlander said:


> I am Catholic.  These two goofs are always trying to teach "us" how wrong the Catholic church is.  That's why I care.  I think they are wrong and I don't appreciate their arrogance.  They think they have all the answers which makes me sick.  So, does that answer your question, Vrai?



I am Methodist.........your arrogance is that I can't take Holy Communion at your Church........you can at mine...God's table, not man's.........


----------



## itsbob

ItalianScallion said:


> Please tell me what "group" of beliefs you belong to Bob. Your theology is wackier than almost any I've heard.
> That example about Jesus throwing the first stone is off the hook...



Wasn't it Jesus that said, "Those without sin, throw the first stone"?? When he approached a group of people preparing to stone a woman for adultery? 

Let those amongst you without sin throw the first stone.. (paraphrase)

If what you say, he was without sin (he wasn't by the way, that comes with having a mortal body) he'd be qualified to throw the first stone under the standards he set.


You thinking he was a mortal man walking the earth and was sinless is what is beyond belief.


----------



## itsbob

hotcoffee said:


> We've seen that Jesus walked on water, calmed the waters, and immediately moved a boat miles to it's destination.... He could have stepped down from the cross...
> !



We have?? Is it on YouTube, can you provide the link??

What we have are fables written about a MAN that lived 400 - 1000 years before the stories were written.

Guess you could say we saw Paul Bunyan fell an entire forest in one swing.. 

2000 years from now, I'd like to be around to see what people believe in then.


----------



## ItalianScallion

itsbob said:


> Wasn't it Jesus that said, "Those without sin, throw the first stone"?? When he approached a group of people preparing to stone a woman for adultery?
> 
> Let those amongst you without sin throw the first stone.. (paraphrase)
> 
> If what you say, he was without sin (he wasn't by the way, that comes with having a mortal body) he'd be qualified to throw the first stone under the standards he set.
> 
> You thinking he was a mortal man walking the earth and was sinless is what is beyond belief.


He could have cast the first stone but He said He chose not to. He said to the woman: "where are your accusers? Has no one condemned you?" She said: "No one sir". He said: "Then neither do I condemn you..."
He could have condemned her but He forgave her under the condition that she leave her life of sin. 

P.S. Hey Bob, Harley Davidson has a sort of religious following. Are you sure you want to buy into it???


----------



## itsbob

ItalianScallion said:


> He could have cast the first stone but He said He chose not to. He said to the woman: "where are your accusers? Has no one condemned you?" She said: "No one sir". He said: "Then neither do I condemn you..."
> He could have condemned her but He forgave her under the condition that she leave her life of sin.
> 
> P.S. Hey Bob, Harley Davidson has a sort of religious following. Are you sure you want to buy into it???



Where does it say he didn't throw the stone because he was without sin??

it doesn't.. It also doesn't say Jesus was without sin ANYwhere in the Bible.. 

It's just what you've been told, and what you chose to believe.


----------



## Starman3000m

itsbob said:


> Wasn't it Jesus that said, "Those without sin, throw the first stone"?? When he approached a group of people preparing to stone a woman for adultery?
> 
> Let those amongst you without sin throw the first stone.. (paraphrase)
> 
> If what you say, he was without sin (he wasn't by the way, that comes with having a mortal body) he'd be qualified to throw the first stone under the standards he set.
> 
> You thinking he was a mortal man walking the earth and was sinless is what is beyond belief.



Yo itsbob! Remember that post about you being at Atheist camp and throwing a rock at the church bus on its way to Vacation Bible School?

Aren't you now throwing rocks at those who believe in Jesus?

The fact that Jesus was sinless is what allows us to be forgiven for our sins; He died in our place to give us eternal life.


----------



## libby

toppick08 said:


> I am Methodist.........your arrogance is that I can't take Holy Communion at your Church........you can at mine...God's table, not man's.........



Hey toppick,
I always enjoy the relief you provide on hot topics.  Re: that the RCC does not allow (and they do not ask for I.D. cards, mind you) non-Catholics to receive does have a explanation beyond exclusion.
I think I've said it before, but I don't know when or where, so I'll repeat it. The RCC takes Paul's words very seriously when he said that anyone who receives the sacrament without discerning the Body and Blood of the Lord, is guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.  So, if you can pretend for a second that all Catholics: priest, bishops, popes and laity, are not evil, maybe you could see it for the good it is intended to be. (does that sound impatient, I mean it as a lighthearted joke).  If the CC believes that they are the only ones that have Divine authority, and let's pretend for a second that they are right, isn't it a good thing that they are trying to protect us from ourselves?  Keeping people from being guilty of a sacrelige is the reason for the teaching.

Lots of love and enjoy the holiday.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Hey toppick,
> I always enjoy the relief you provide on hot topics.  Re: that the RCC does not allow (and they do not ask for I.D. cards, mind you) non-Catholics to receive does have a explanation beyond exclusion.
> I think I've said it before, but I don't know when or where, so I'll repeat it. The RCC takes Paul's words very seriously when he said that anyone who receives the sacrament without discerning the Body and Blood of the Lord, is guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.  So, if you can pretend for a second that all Catholics: priest, bishops, popes and laity, are not evil, maybe you could see it for the good it is intended to be. (does that sound impatient, I mean it as a lighthearted joke).  If the CC believes that they are the only ones that have Divine authority, and let's pretend for a second that they are right, isn't it a good thing that they are trying to protect us from ourselves?  Keeping people from being guilty of a sacrelige is the reason for the teaching.
> 
> Lots of love and enjoy the holiday.



libby, are you aware that ministers in the Evangelical / Protestant and non-Denominational Christian churches  quote the exact same words of Paul to their congregation prior to serving Communion?

Paul's Words:

*Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.* (1 Corinthians 11:27)

Does that mean that those in non-Catholic services are not sincere in their partaking of the Communion and faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour?

I still love you as a friend, believe it or not!


----------



## ItalianScallion

itsbob said:


> Where does it say he didn't throw the stone because he was without sin??
> it doesn't.. It also doesn't say Jesus was without sin ANYwhere in the Bible..
> It's just what you've been told, and what you chose to believe.


This makes you a false teacher now Bob and NO ONE will ever listen to you on here again.  
Not that you'd believe it anyway Bob but here they are: 
"Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?" (John 8 v 46).
"God made Him who had NO SIN to be sin for us..." (2 Corinthians 5 v 21)
"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are - YET WAS WITHOUT SIN". (Hebrews 4 v 15)
"He committed NO SIN and no deceit was found in his mouth." (1 Peter 2 v 22)
"...He appeared so that He might take away our sins. And in Him is NO SIN."
(1 John 3 v 5)


----------



## Starman3000m

itsbob said:


> Where does it say he didn't throw the stone because he was without sin??
> 
> it doesn't.. It also doesn't say Jesus was without sin ANYwhere in the Bible..
> 
> It's just what you've been told, and what you chose to believe.



From the Holy Bible - speaking of Jesus, our High Priest:

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. (Hebrews 9:28)

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. (1 John 3:5)


----------



## ItalianScallion

libby said:


> Hey toppick,
> I always enjoy the relief you provide on *hot topics*.


Hey, she thinks you're hot............Toppick


----------



## Starman3000m

ItalianScallion said:


> This makes you a false teacher now Bob and NO ONE will ever listen to you on here again.
> Not that you'd believe it anyway Bob but here they are:
> "Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?" (John 8 v 46).
> "God made Him who had NO SIN to be sin for us..." (2 Corinthians 5 v 21)
> "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are - YET WAS WITHOUT SIN". (Hebrews 4 v 15)
> "He committed NO SIN and no deceit was found in his mouth." (1 Peter 2 v 22)
> "...He appeared so that He might take away our sins. And in Him is NO SIN."
> (1 John 3 v 5)



Good job ItalianScallion! You posted right when I was doing my search and you found other verses I missed. Guess your Harley is faster than mine. LOL
(Just kidding - I don't own a Harley but three of my co-workers do)


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> libby, are you aware that ministers in the Evangelical / Protestant and non-Denominational Christian churches  quote the exact same words of Paul to their congregation prior to serving Communion?
> 
> Paul's Words:
> 
> *Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.* (1 Corinthians 11:27)
> 
> Does that mean that those in non-Catholic services are not sincere in their partaking of the Communion and faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour?
> 
> I still love you as a friend, believe it or not!



Starman, I have never made a judgement on the sincerity of anyone.  I would never say that of a non-Catholic, and believe that there are many things Catholics can learn from Protestants.  If only Catholics were as on fire for Jesus Christ as some Protestant bretheren.  
And no, I don't think that has anything to do with who holds the Truth.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Starman, I have never made a judgement on the sincerity of anyone.  I would never say that of a non-Catholic, and believe that there are many things Catholics can learn from Protestants.  If only Catholics were as on fire for Jesus Christ as some Protestant bretheren.
> And no, I don't think that has anything to do with who holds the Truth.



Thank you, dear libby, for not putting me on "ignore". 

I will always love you as a friend (I know that goes for ItalianScallion as well) and hope you will someday understand that Christ has called us into a non-denominational approach whereby we point this world to the only One who holds the Truth. (John 14:6) 

It has been said before that Christianity is not a "religion" it is a Personal Relationship with The Risen Lord and Saviour - Jesus Christ of Nazareth. (John 3:14-18)


----------



## itsbob

ItalianScallion said:


> This makes you a false teacher now Bob and NO ONE will ever listen to you on here again.
> Not that you'd believe it anyway Bob but here they are:
> "Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?" (John 8 v 46).
> "God made Him who had NO SIN to be sin for us..." (2 Corinthians 5 v 21)
> "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are - YET WAS WITHOUT SIN". (Hebrews 4 v 15)
> "He committed NO SIN and no deceit was found in his mouth." (1 Peter 2 v 22)
> "...He appeared so that He might take away our sins. And in Him is NO SIN."
> (1 John 3 v 5)



Never claimed to be a teacher...

Can't give less than a rat's ass if anyone 'listens' to me.. it's not possible that Christ was without sin.. he was born from a woman wasn't he?

And again, you take what is written about a man 400 years after he was DEAD, and you get fourth generation stories handed down and put in print,

It was not possible for Jesus to be without sin... you know why?

He was a THUG.. a LAWBREAKER.  Agree with the laws of the day or not, he broke them.. THAT means he was NOT free of sin.. How many stories are in the bible where he broke the current law.. common or religious law of the day?  If it's one or more, than it's IMPOSSIBLE for him to be without sin.. no matter what somebody thought Peter might have said 400 years after the fact.. the law of the land, is the law of the land.

JUST like those that bomb abortion clinics because GOD told them to.. It's against the current day law, and it's a sin, don't care what God whispered in their ear.


----------



## itsbob

Starman3000m said:


> libby, are you aware that ministers in the Evangelical / Protestant and non-Denominational Christian churches  quote the exact same words of Paul to their congregation prior to serving Communion?
> 
> Paul's Words:
> 
> *Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.* (1 Corinthians 11:27)
> 
> Does that mean that those in non-Catholic services are not sincere in their partaking of the Communion and faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour?
> 
> I still love you as a friend, believe it or not!




And those tha are worthy are drinking Christ's blood, and eating his flesh.. 

Yep, current day, 2009.. practicing virtual cannibalism for our God(s)


----------



## Toxick

itsbob said:


> Secondly, Jesus didn't die on the cross.





Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you fond of referring to the cross as a "murder weapon"?



Did they beat him to death with it?


----------



## toppick08

libby said:


> Hey toppick,
> I always enjoy the relief you provide on hot topics.  Re: that the RCC does not allow (and they do not ask for I.D. cards, mind you) non-Catholics to receive does have a explanation beyond exclusion.
> I think I've said it before, but I don't know when or where, so I'll repeat it. The RCC takes Paul's words very seriously when he said that anyone who receives the sacrament without discerning the Body and Blood of the Lord, is guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.  So, if you can pretend for a second that all Catholics: priest, bishops, popes and laity, are not evil, maybe you could see it for the good it is intended to be. (does that sound impatient, I mean it as a lighthearted joke).  If the CC believes that they are the only ones that have Divine authority, and let's pretend for a second that they are right, isn't it a good thing that they are trying to protect us from ourselves?  Keeping people from being guilty of a sacrelige is the reason for the teaching.
> 
> Lots of love and enjoy the holiday.



..you to my friend........


----------



## hotcoffee

Confused...  I don't understand how Born Again Cult got to be a discussion on Did Jesus die on the cross? or Was Jesus sinless? or even what is a Born Again Cult.... is it like the Jim Jones Cult?


----------



## ItalianScallion

itsbob said:


> .. it's not possible that Christ was without sin.. he was born from a woman wasn't he?
> It was not possible for Jesus to be without sin... you know why?
> He was a THUG.. a LAWBREAKER.  Agree with the laws of the day or not, he broke them.. THAT means he was NOT free of sin.. How many stories are in the bible where he broke the current law.. common or religious law of the day?  If it's one or more, than it's IMPOSSIBLE for him to be without sin.. no matter what somebody thought Peter might have said 400 years after the fact.. the law of the land, is the law of the land.
> 
> JUST like those that bomb abortion clinics because GOD told them to.. It's against the current day law, and it's a sin, don't care what God whispered in their ear.


You need to get saved Bob. Your responses are those of a seriously lost soul. 
Your questions ALL have answers but you don't want to accept them. 
What does Jesus sinlessness have to do with being born of a woman? 
Jesus is God come to earth as a human. He COULDN'T sin. 
Aborted babies are sinless. Babies who are born then die young are sinless. Don't go believing that original sin lie... So why should it be hard for Jesus not to sin? 
He came to introduce a new law so that the pressure of legalism would be eliminated. That, in itself, elminated many of the OT laws. He fulfilled the requirement of all of the laws so that people could get to Heaven easier; through Him alone. 
And God NEVER told anyone to bomb any abortion clinics... 


hotcoffee said:


> Confused...  I don't understand how Born Again Cult got to be a discussion on Did Jesus die on the cross? or Was Jesus sinless? or even what is a Born Again Cult.... is it like the Jim Jones Cult?


Hang around here more; it happens daily.


----------



## itsbob

hotcoffee said:


> According to the Gospel of John....  John the Baptist was preaching about the fact that Jesus was coming....  I think I read that John the Baptist didn't recognize Jesus as the Christ until the Spirit of the Lord came down for Jesus... and then once John the Baptist saw that... he testified that Jesus was the Christ....
> 
> So....  Jesus was Baptised to bring on the Spirit...  or that's how I see it...



Nope, that CAN'T be the reason Jesus was baptised, because according to Starman and others, all three are one and the same.

Jesus WAS God, and WAS the holy spirit.. the trinity were really one person, Jesus.

Jesus needed to be baptised to be cleansed of all sins.. then, MAYBE he could have claimed to be sinless, at least for a time.. But no mortal man, and Jesus WAS a mortal man, is sinless, it's not possible.


----------



## itsbob

ItalianScallion said:


> This makes you a false teacher now Bob and NO ONE will ever listen to you on here again.
> Not that you'd believe it anyway Bob but here they are:
> "Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?" (John 8 v 46).
> "God made Him who had NO SIN to be sin for us..." (2 Corinthians 5 v 21)
> "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are - YET WAS WITHOUT SIN". (Hebrews 4 v 15)
> "He committed NO SIN and no deceit was found in his mouth." (1 Peter 2 v 22)
> "...He appeared so that He might take away our sins. And in Him is NO SIN."
> (1 John 3 v 5)



Thank you for proving the fallacy of the Bible.. 

As it is IMPOSSIBLE for a mortal being to be sinless, in deed and thought, if the Bible says Jesus was sinless, then the Bible is WRONG and is itself a fallacy.


----------



## Starman3000m

hotcoffee said:


> Confused...  I don't understand how Born Again Cult got to be a discussion on Did Jesus die on the cross? or Was Jesus sinless? or even what is a Born Again Cult.... is it like the Jim Jones Cult?



Hi hotcoffee, there really is no confusion when Truth is revealed. There is only confusion when people cannot see the truth, are blinded by indoctrinated ideologies, are in denial and, thus, will not accept the Truth when it is right in front of them.

The Holy Bible is filled with examples of Jesus speaking Truth to the highest order of religious leaders who were great "theologians" but could not understand the spiritual aspects of serving God. They would be confused because they could not comprehend God's Word at the spiritual level in which it is to be received. The first point to note is that *God is not the author of confusion:*

*For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.* (1 Corinthians 14:33)

Regarding if "Born Again" is a cult, as thought by Highlander at the start of this thread, there should be no confusion in this area if you believe that Jesus actually stated that one must be born again of the Spirit.

Being Born Again is when the Holy Spirit of God establishes an indwelling presence in the life of a follower of Jesus so as to make a dramatic change in lifestyle and a renewing of the mind that is able to comprehend the Spiritual Truths of God's Word. Jesus made the comparison that we have two (2) facets of life that we can choose to control us and they are the fleshly desires or spiritual desires.

Being humans, we all start out with pretty much the same fleshly desires in life and separated from God by our basic disobedience to Him. 

On the other hand, "religious people" in all denominations will tell you that they are trying to live a "spiritual life" but the fact is that they are trying to do it under their own strength. As long as people try to live a spiritual life under their own will and strength they will be spiritually defeated over and over again. That is why one cannot begin to truly know God in fullness nor receive the indwelling of His Direct and Divine Guidance until they are "born again" of The Holy Spirit as Jesus said one must be:

*That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. *(John 3:6-7)

Until a person is born again of the Spirit, they are controlled by the humanity of flesh which is in opposition to the Spiritual things of God.

The Bible explains the difference:

*From Galatians, Chapter 5:*

17: For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18: But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19: Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20: Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21: Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23: Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24: And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25: If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
26: Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.


----------



## ItalianScallion

itsbob said:


> Thank you for proving the fallacy of the Bible..
> 
> As it is IMPOSSIBLE for a mortal being to be sinless, in deed and thought, if the Bible says Jesus was sinless, then the Bible is WRONG and is itself a fallacy.


----------



## slowbob

*slowbob*



itsbob said:


> You must have been an easy mark. Luckily the Davidians didn't get you you first.



You da man, Bob!


----------



## slowbob

slowbob said:


> You da man, Bob!


You 'da man, Bob!


----------



## slowbob

According to dubya, god spoke directly to him and told him to invade and destroy Iraq!
Don't think he ever spoke directly to me, so guess I am clear of that debacle and the over 4000 american fatalities and more than 1 million innocent Iraqis killed.
You da man, Bob


----------



## PsyOps

itsbob said:


> Nope, that CAN'T be the reason Jesus was baptised, because according to Starman and others, all three are one and the same.
> 
> Jesus WAS God, and WAS the holy spirit.. the trinity were really one person, Jesus.
> 
> Jesus needed to be baptised to be cleansed of all sins.. then, MAYBE he could have claimed to be sinless, at least for a time.. But no mortal man, and Jesus WAS a mortal man, is sinless, it's not possible.



Why do you even argue that Jesus was anything since you believe it's all fable?



itsbob said:


> What we have are fables written about a MAN that lived 400 - 1000 years before the stories were written.


----------



## Starman3000m

itsbob said:


> Nope, that CAN'T be the reason Jesus was baptised, because according to Starman and others, all three are one and the same.
> 
> Jesus WAS God, and WAS the holy spirit.. the trinity were really one person, Jesus.
> 
> Jesus needed to be baptised to be cleansed of all sins.. then, MAYBE he could have claimed to be sinless, at least for a time.. But no mortal man, and Jesus WAS a mortal man, is sinless, it's not possible.



Jesus set the example of how peope were to commit their lives to God. It had already been prophesied about John's baptizing ministry being ordained by God for the people and yet John acknowledged that One would appear who would be above reproach. Yet, in order to fulfill prophecy, Jesus went to John for baptism as stated in the Holy Bible. 

*Here is the account:*

*It had already been prophesied that John would be a Prophet and begin his ministry of water baptism prior to Jesus' Baptism of the Holy Spirit which would supersede that of water baptism:*

*Mark 1: *

1: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
2: As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
3: The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
4: John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
5: And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.
6: And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey;
7: And preached, saying, *There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.
8: I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.*

(Also referenced in Luke 3:16 and John 1:27)


*John's ministry of preaching the coming of the Kingdom of God had already started to become known throughout the land. Then, being expectant of the Messiah's appearance, John heard about Jesus and sent out to inquire who He might be - to see if it was the Christ that he (John) awaited.*

*Matthew 11: verses, *

1: And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities.
2: Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples,
3: And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?
4: Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see:
5: The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.
6: And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.

*As Jesus' fame became widespread regarding His teachings and miracles, the religious leaders are in wonder and question where Jesus had received the Authority of His Ministry:*

*Matthew 21: verses,*

23: And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?
24: And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.
25: The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
26: But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.


----------



## hotcoffee

John 1:30 This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was befroe me.'  

31 I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel."  

32  Then John gave this testimoney:  "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him.

33 I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whome you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.'

34  I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."




After that Jesus had the chat with Nicodemas about being born again.... John was baptizing with water.... Jesus was baptized with water but then turned around and baptized with the Spirit....


----------



## itsbob

PsyOps said:


> Why do you even argue that Jesus was anything since you believe it's all fable?



Because I believe Jesus existed, he was born, and he died like the rest of us have and will.

The fable started after he died, and several hundred of years later they decided to make him much more than he really was.  They started a story, based on MANY storied before it, taken pieces of many religions, and many beliefs and writing it into a single piece of fiction that people have used as their basis for starting wars, killing people that didn't believe their fiction. and even a basis for genocide.

You write a book of fiction, and dispersed in that book is some factual places, and people, a lot of people tend to believe it.. as if I can prove ONE piece of it to be true than all of it MUST be true.  Yet anyone with the ability to think knows that's not the case.

Jesus existed, we know that is fact, so Moses MUST of talked to a burning Bush.. There was a town called Babylon, so Noah MUST have built the Arc and two of every animal were on it.  There really was a King Herod so Moses MUST have parted the sea.  Bethlehem existed so we know Jesus rose from the dead.. 

Someone finds the original scrolls from when the Bible was written so it PROVES that everything in it is true??  No, it just proves that it was written..


----------



## hotcoffee

itsbob said:


> Because I believe Jesus existed, he was born, and he died like the rest of us have and will.
> 
> The fable started after he died, and several hundred of years later they decided to make him much more than he really was.  They started a story, based on MANY storied before it, taken pieces of many religions, and many beliefs and writing it into a single piece of fiction that people have used as their basis for starting wars, killing people that didn't believe their fiction. and even a basis for genocide.
> 
> You write a book of fiction, and dispersed in that book is some factual places, and people, a lot of people tend to believe it.. as if I can prove ONE piece of it to be true than all of it MUST be true.  Yet anyone with the ability to think knows that's not the case.
> 
> Jesus existed, we know that is fact, so Moses MUST of talked to a burning Bush.. There was a town called Babylon, so Noah MUST have built the Arc and two of every animal were on it.  There really was a King Herod so Moses MUST have parted the sea.  Bethlehem existed so we know Jesus rose from the dead..
> 
> Someone finds the original scrolls from when the Bible was written so it PROVES that everything in it is true??  No, it just proves that it was written..



So you don't believe in salvation?  So you think we live once and then we die?  Is it dark in your life?


----------



## itsbob

hotcoffee said:


> Is it dark in your life?



Nope, despite what you believe or have been taught, you can be happy and have a wonderful life without being told how to live by a church or another person.

People that know me know I have a wonderful life, a great outlook on life, and am VERY happy.  I don't drink myself into oblivion because I don't have Christ in my life, I don't do drugs because I don't believe in the afterlife.. I don't sacrifice animals (other than the ones that go on my grill).. matter of fact, I'm as normal, or even more normal than most.

People have the ability to be good for the sake of being good, not for some kind of promised reward in the afterlife.


----------



## PsyOps

itsbob said:


> Because I believe Jesus existed, he was born, and he died like the rest of us have and will.
> 
> The fable started after he died, and several hundred of years later they decided to make him much more than he really was.  They started a story, based on MANY storied before it, taken pieces of many religions, and many beliefs and writing it into a single piece of fiction that people have used as their basis for starting wars, killing people that didn't believe their fiction. and even a basis for genocide.
> 
> You write a book of fiction, and dispersed in that book is some factual places, and people, a lot of people tend to believe it.. as if I can prove ONE piece of it to be true than all of it MUST be true.  Yet anyone with the ability to think knows that's not the case.
> 
> Jesus existed, we know that is fact, so Moses MUST of talked to a burning Bush.. There was a town called Babylon, so Noah MUST have built the Arc and two of every animal were on it.  There really was a King Herod so Moses MUST have parted the sea.  Bethlehem existed so we know Jesus rose from the dead..
> 
> Someone finds the original scrolls from when the Bible was written so it PROVES that everything in it is true??  No, it just proves that it was written..



So, you believe such a man named Jesus existed but not the story behind it?  Can you provide references to the Jesus in which you claimed lived 2000+ years ago?  I mean IF He existed at all.


----------



## Radiant1

itsbob said:


> People have the ability to be good for the sake of being good, not for some kind of promised reward in the afterlife.



I agree, but I wonder from where one's desire to be good comes from, or even the concept of bad and good?


----------



## itsbob

Radiant1 said:


> I agree, but I wonder from where one's desire to be good comes from, or even the concept of bad and good?



From the Brothers Grimm..

I do know that people can be coerced to be   bad, REAL bad. for promises in the afterlife, just as easily as then can be convinced to being god for promises in the afterlife.. 

Amazing how easily people can be manipulated over promises of something that can't be proven..


----------



## Radiant1

itsbob said:


> From the Brothers Grimm..
> 
> I do know that people can be coerced to be   bad, REAL bad. for promises in the afterlife, just as easily as then can be convinced to being god for promises in the afterlife..
> 
> Amazing how easily people can be manipulated over promises of something that can't be proven..



Brothers Grimm...

You're right regarding coersion, but you didn't answer my question (not really anyway). 

You know where I'm going with this, so let's skip the sarcasm and get down to the essence of the question. It's one I've pondered on a great deal, and I'm genuinely interested in what you think.


----------



## PsyOps

Radiant1 said:


> I agree, but I wonder from where one's desire to be good comes from, or even the concept of bad and good?



This is sort of like asking where the universe came from.  Hot/cold.  Up/down.  Wet/dry.  Left/right.  Good/evil.  How can such a perfect design of things come from a random phenomenon?  Sometimes this is what compels someone to conclude there must be a designer.


----------



## hotcoffee

itsbob said:


> Nope, despite what you believe or have been taught, you can be happy and have a wonderful life without being told how to live by a church or another person.
> 
> People have the ability to be good for the sake of being good, not for some kind of promised reward in the afterlife.



Actually... it's more "despite what _*I* have read and experienced_"....  I've known a lot of good people [like myself] who studied the word, believed... and actually saw a difference in their own lives.... I don't much trust what the church or a preacher tells me... I look for myself...  after all ... _churches and preachers are just humans.... like me...._

I learned a long time ago that I don't have the power to convert you to my belief....  I can only be me... _If God wants you... then *He'll* let you know....._

I don't _know_ very many happy people who are not believers.   Jesus said that not everyone was called to be a follower.  Maybe you are happy because you don't know any better.... I was just wondering.... _when you die... will it be dark? _

As for being good.... "for some kind of promised reward in the afterlife"...   *I believe *so I'll get the afterlife....  I'm good or bad because I want to be... *I've already got the ticket to heaven...*  being good has nothing to do with getting there.... *I've already got the ticket*....

I enjoy talking about it....


----------



## Radiant1

PsyOps said:


> This is sort of like asking where the universe came from.  Hot/cold.  Up/down.  Wet/dry.  Left/right.  Good/evil.  How can such a perfect design of things come from a random phenomenon?  Sometimes this is what compels someone to conclude there must be a designer.



Exactly.


----------



## Starman3000m

hotcoffee said:


> John 1:30 This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was befroe me.'
> 
> 31 I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel."
> 
> 32  Then John gave this testimoney:  "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him.
> 
> 33 I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whome you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.'
> 
> 34  I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."
> 
> 
> After that Jesus had the chat with Nicodemas about being born again.... John was baptizing with water.... Jesus was baptized with water but then turned around and baptized with the Spirit....





Good job, hotcoffee, in pointing out the applicable verses!


----------



## itsbob

hotcoffee said:


> As for being good.... "for some kind of promised reward in the afterlife"...   *I believe *so I'll get the afterlife....  I'm good or bad because I want to be... *I've already got the ticket to heaven...*  being good has nothing to do with getting there.... *I've already got the ticket*....
> 
> I enjoy talking about it....



So if you rape ten children and murder their mothers you'll get there because "you already have the ticket"??

And it won't be dark after I die, there will be nothing after I die.. I won't realize I'm dead as I won't be capable of thought.  I just won't BE anymore.  So I figure I better make the most out of the life I have.. be happy NOW vice later...


----------



## hotcoffee

itsbob said:


> So if you rape ten children and murder their mothers you'll get there because "you already have the ticket"??...



Yes... I have the ticket

I won't rape ten children and murder their mothers because *I have the Spirit of the Lord in me.... *

Also... once saved you don't have a free get out of consequences ticket... You will suffer consequences you are still judged... but you will have eternal life....



itsbob said:


> And it won't be dark after I die, there will be nothing after I die.. I won't realize I'm dead as I won't be capable of thought.  I just won't BE anymore.  So I figure I better make the most out of the life I have.. be happy NOW vice later...



I am sad for you....


----------



## libby

hotcoffee said:


> Yes... I have the ticket
> 
> I won't rape ten children and murder their mothers because *I have the Spirit of the Lord in me.... *
> 
> Also... once saved you don't have a free get out of consequences ticket... You will suffer consequences you are still judged... but you will have eternal life....
> 
> 
> 
> I am sad for you....



What, praytell, can the consequences be if you are in Heaven?


----------



## hotcoffee

libby said:


> What, praytell, can the consequences be if you are in Heaven?



That's up to Jesus.


----------



## libby

hotcoffee said:


> That's up to Jesus.



Surely, you must've thought through that just a bit.  Consequences denote a negative; Heaven is only all that is good.

Can you hazard a guess, or can you explain in any way what judgment entails if you are saved and you know it?


----------



## itsbob

hotcoffee said:


> Yes... I have the ticket
> 
> I won't rape ten children and murder their mothers because *I have the Spirit of the Lord in me.... *
> 
> Also... once saved you don't have a free get out of consequences ticket... You will suffer consequences you are still judged... but you will have eternal life....
> 
> 
> 
> I am sad for you....



No reason to be sad for me, I'm probably the happiest most content person you either know or don't know..

Don't need a fictional character(s) to make my life complete.


----------



## hotcoffee

libby said:


> Surely, you must've thought through that just a bit.  Consequences denote a negative; Heaven is only all that is good.
> 
> Can you hazard a guess, or can you explain in any way what judgment entails if you are saved and you know it?



I would not begin to guess what the consequences would be.  

My Father loves me....  I am a child of God...  

What loving Father would not correct a child?  Would it be heaven without perfect consequence?


----------



## itsbob

hotcoffee said:


> I would not begin to guess what the consequences would be.
> 
> My Father loves me....  I am a child of God...
> 
> What loving Father would not correct a child?  Would it be heaven without perfect consequence?



You must be so happy knowing that you're going to have a perfect LIFE after you DIE!!


Somewhat Ironic isn't it??


----------



## Starman3000m

hotcoffee said:


> I would not begin to guess what the consequences would be.
> 
> My Father loves me....  I am a child of God...
> 
> What loving Father would not correct a child?  Would it be heaven without perfect consequence?



Good replies hotcoffee! 

*Here are some Bible Truths that we are assured of:* (not my words - my Copy & Paste)

*There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.* (Romans 8:1)

*The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:* (Romans 8:16)

*For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.* (Galatians 3:26)

*Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.* (2 Peter 3:13)

*And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.*(1 Thessalonians 1:10)


----------



## libby

hotcoffee said:


> I would not begin to guess what the consequences would be.
> 
> My Father loves me....  I am a child of God...
> 
> What loving Father would not correct a child?  Would it be heaven without perfect consequence?



So, just as a good and loving father on earth would do.  My son breaks a window, apologizes, and of course I forgive him because I love him.  He is still part of my family and I would not turn him out.
However, as any loving father disciplines a child, I would likely make that child work off some of the $$ it's going to take to replace the window because it is justice.  In fact, he is not capable of earning enough to pay for the window so, naturally, I step in to actually make the payment for the new window.
Are you saying that sort of thing is the consequence we will see at judgment?


----------



## hotcoffee

itsbob said:


> You must be so happy knowing that you're going to have a perfect LIFE after you DIE!!
> 
> 
> Somewhat Ironic isn't it??



*I won't die...* 

I have been given the gift of everlasting life because I believe in Jesus....

What's Ironic is... in a world where knowledge of Jesus is so plentiful... if you continue to choose to be a non-believer.... you will never know perfect peace....  that's why I am so sad for you....

If you continue to choose to be a non-believer.... You'll never know the fabulous rush of being baptized in the Spirit... 

It's easier to walk in the daylight... or with a bright flashlight....  

Jesus is the light of the world.  Following Him... I don't have to walk in the darkness... So life is easier....


----------



## hotcoffee

libby said:


> So, just as a good and loving father on earth would do.  My son breaks a window, apologizes, and of course I forgive him because I love him.  He is still part of my family and I would not turn him out.
> However, as any loving father disciplines a child, I would likely make that child work off some of the $$ it's going to take to replace the window because it is justice.  In fact, he is not capable of earning enough to pay for the window so, naturally, I step in to actually make the payment for the new window.
> Are you saying that sort of thing is the consequence we will see at judgment?



Like I said... I'm not sure....what the consequence would be....  Jesus will intercede for me... 

He's already taken on my sin... he already paid for it.... but I'm pretty sure He will soothe my guilt with justice....


----------



## libby

hotcoffee said:


> Like I said... I'm not sure....what the consequence would be....  Jesus will intercede for me...
> 
> He's already taken on my sin... he already paid for it.... but I'm pretty sure He will soothe my guilt with justice....



You clearly have wisdom by the statement that He will "soothe your guilt with justice".  Nothing we ever do could make up for the sin we have committed, but insofar as our human nature is capable we must "make up for" our sin.  If the idea of Divine Justice is meaningless to a believer, then so, too, must Divine Mercy be for naught.


----------



## hotcoffee

libby said:


> You clearly have wisdom by the statement that He will "soothe your guilt with justice".  Nothing we ever do could make up for the sin we have committed, but insofar as our human nature is capable we must "make up for" our sin.  If the idea of Divine Justice is meaningless to a believer, then so, too, must Divine Mercy be for naught.



Divine Justice?  How would you describe it?


----------



## libby

In a nutshell, I believe that when we are judged God will weigh perfectly the good we have done for love of Him with the sins we have committed.  I believe Bible Christians call this process of growing in holiness "sanctification", which works just fine for me. (in case you didn't know, I'm 100% dyed in the wool Catholic)
In any case, _insofar as our human condition is capable_, I believe we must "make up for" the wrongs we have done.  If we do not do that in this life then we must accept that temporal punishment at judgment, which is what Catholics call purgatory.  Since nothing unclean can enter Heaven, and I know my soul is not 100% clean, some process must occur.  Cleased by fire.  Jesus has promised everlasting life, but he never said we got off scott free.
Just to be clear to my BAC nemesis (what's the plural of this?) 
there is no amount of good works that we could do to merit Heaven were it not for the salvific work of Jesus Christ.
The Catholic doctrine of purgatory is absolutely NOT a second chance at salvation.  That lie is perpetuated by those who are just determined to bear false witness no matter how many times the truth is presented to them.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> The Catholic doctrine of purgatory is absolutely NOT a second chance at salvation.  That lie is perpetuated by those who are just determined to bear false witness no matter how many times the truth is presented to them.



*Doctrinal Question about RCC Theology:*

libby, in the Catholic Doctrine of purgatory, are there any Catholics who will be able to pass entering into purgatory and will Go Straight To Heaven because they were good enough here on earth? Or, as you infer, do all Catholics realize that perhaps they just cannot be  good enough as it is right now to merit heaven, thus, they are expectant of getting punished in purgatory before they are allowed in heaven?


----------



## hotcoffee

Starman3000m said:


> *Doctrinal Question about RCC Theology:*
> 
> libby, in the Catholic Doctrine of purgatory, are there any Catholics who will be able to pass entering into purgatory and will Go Straight To Heaven because they were good enough here on earth? Or, as you infer, do all Catholics realize that perhaps they just cannot be  good enough as it is right now to merit heaven, thus, they are expectant of getting punished in purgatory before they are allowed in heaven?



Catholism is very confusing....  I'm glad I'm a Baptist...


----------



## Starman3000m

hotcoffee said:


> Catholism is very confusing....  I'm glad I'm a Baptist...



And a Child of God! 

*Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.* (Matthew 11:28-30)


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> *Doctrinal Question about RCC Theology:*
> 
> libby, in the Catholic Doctrine of purgatory, are there any Catholics who will be able to pass entering into purgatory and will Go Straight To Heaven because they were good enough here on earth? Or, as you infer, do all Catholics realize that perhaps they just cannot be  good enough as it is right now to merit heaven, thus, they are expectant of getting punished in purgatory before they are allowed in heaven?



Yeah, I assume there are such people.  Mother Theresa comes to mind.  Personally, I expect to spend some time in purgatory, and virtually everyone I know (who actually know and practices his/her faith) would say the same thing.
I know it is far more pleasing to the ear and the human heart to think it's all touchy-feely.  Imagine, you don't have to _do_ anything and you get Paradise!  It's a liberals dream.


----------



## hotcoffee

Starman3000m said:


> And a Child of God!
> 
> *Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.* (Matthew 11:28-30)



I was in a Bible study some time ago... and the "yoke" came up....  

I always thought that a yoke would be heavy to bear... but according to the story they told... the ox that fights the yoke uses a stiff neck and the yoke doesn't fit right [if it goes on at all] and it wears a sore on the ox.  If the ox doesn't fight... it's padded and easy to carry....

I would hate to think that I would have to depend on the prayers of my friends and family to get me into heaven.

I like having a one to one relationship with Jesus.  I like it when I talk to Him.


----------



## PsyOps

itsbob said:


> Because I believe Jesus existed, he was born, and he died like the rest of us have and will.
> 
> The fable started after he died, and several hundred of years later they decided to make him much more than he really was.  They started a story, based on MANY storied before it, taken pieces of many religions, and many beliefs and writing it into a single piece of fiction that people have used as their basis for starting wars, killing people that didn't believe their fiction. and even a basis for genocide.
> 
> You write a book of fiction, and dispersed in that book is some factual places, and people, a lot of people tend to believe it.. as if I can prove ONE piece of it to be true than all of it MUST be true.  Yet anyone with the ability to think knows that's not the case.
> 
> Jesus existed, we know that is fact, so Moses MUST of talked to a burning Bush.. There was a town called Babylon, so Noah MUST have built the Arc and two of every animal were on it.  There really was a King Herod so Moses MUST have parted the sea.  Bethlehem existed so we know Jesus rose from the dead..
> 
> Someone finds the original scrolls from when the Bible was written so it PROVES that everything in it is true??  No, it just proves that it was written..





PsyOps said:


> So, you believe such a man named Jesus existed but not the story behind it?  Can you provide references to the Jesus in which you claimed lived 2000+ years ago?  I mean IF He existed at all.



So, no answer?


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Yeah, I assume there are such people.  Mother Theresa comes to mind.  Personally, I expect to spend some time in purgatory, and virtually everyone I know (who actually know and practices his/her faith) would say the same thing.



Hmmm...only Mother Theresa comes to mind? What about all of the RCC popes? By the way, are you aware that Mother Theresa once stated that she had doubts about her own salvation?



> I know it is far more pleasing to the ear and the human heart to think it's all touchy-feely.  Imagine, you don't have to _do_ anything and you get Paradise!  It's a liberals dream.



Not as you describe my dear libby. Through repentance and placing total faith in the Saving Grace of Christ, a person becomes "born again" in the here and now as Jesus said one must be. The indwelling Holy Spirit of God then secures our Salvation and becomes our guide to help us lead a changed lifestyle having Christ as Lord of our life. Sure we are still human and imperfect - only Jesus was perfect and sinless, but it is He who is our High Priest and Mediator and it is the Holy Spirit that helps change our lives:

Jesus answered and said unto him,* Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.* (John 3:3)

Herein is the difference between the old lifestyle and the new lifestyle that occurs when one is born again:

*From Ephesians, Chapter 4, verses:* (my Copy & Paste from the Holy Bible)

22: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
23: And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24: And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
25: Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
26: Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:
27: Neither give place to the devil.
28: Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.
29: Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
30: And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
31: Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:
32: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.


----------



## hotcoffee

Starman3000m said:


> Hmmm...only Mother Theresa comes to mind? What about all of the RCC popes? By the way, are you aware that Mother Theresa once stated that she had doubts about her own salvation?
> 
> 
> 
> Not as you describe my dear libby. Through repentance and placing total faith in the Saving Grace of Christ, a person becomes "born again" in the here and now as Jesus said one must be. The indwelling Holy Spirit of God then secures our Salvation and becomes our guide to help us lead a changed lifestyle having Christ as Lord of our life. Sure we are still human and imperfect - only Jesus was perfect and sinless, but it is He who is our High Priest and Mediator and it is the Holy Spirit that helps change our lives:
> 
> Jesus answered and said unto him,* Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.* (John 3:3)
> 
> Herein is the difference between the old lifestyle and the new lifestyle that occurs when one is born again:
> 
> *From Ephesians, Chapter 4, verses:* (my Copy & Paste from the Holy Bible)
> 
> 22: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
> 23: And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
> 24: And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
> 25: Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
> 26: Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:
> 27: Neither give place to the devil.
> 28: Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.
> 29: Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
> 30: And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
> 31: Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:
> 32: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.


----------



## libby

> By the way, are you aware that Mother Theresa once stated that she had doubts about her own salvation?



I sure do know about that.  She was working out her salvation in fear and trembling, just as Holy Writ told her to do.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> I sure do know about that.  She was working out her salvation in fear and trembling, just as Holy Writ told her to do.



OK but according to her own words, she still wasn't sure and also believed that anyone could work out their own salvation within the bounds of their own faith and belief in whatever God they were taught to believe in. 
Not my words - hers:

(excerpt)

“Did you realize that mother Teresa stated: "What we are all trying to do by our work, by serving the people, is to come closer to God. If in coming face to face with God we accept Him in our lives, then we are converting. We become a better Hindu, a better Muslim, a better Catholic, a better whatever we are, and then by being better we come closer and closer to Him. If we accept Him fully in our lives, then that is conversion. What approach would I use? For me, naturally, it would be a Catholic one, for you it may be Hindu, for someone else, Buddhist, according to one's conscience. What God is in your mind you must accept." 
[Desmond Doig, "Mother Teresa: Her People and Her Work", William Collins Sons & Co., Ltd., Glascow, 1976, page 136, as quoted by Constance Cumbey, in "A Planned Deception: The Staging of a New Age Messiah", Pointe Publishers, East Detroit, Michigan, ISBN 0-935897-00-3, page 108] [Emphasis ours] 

“Mother Teresa also stated: "There are many Hindu ladies who want our way of life, the life of poverty, prayer, sacrifice and service. They want the life of a Missionary. But they wish to retain their faith, their own belief in God ... We live that they may die, so that they may go home according to what is written in the book, be it written according to Hindu, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Catholic, or Protestant, or any other belief ... We give them whatever they ask according to their faith." [Ibid]

Mother Teresa


----------



## Im_Me

libby said:


> I sure do know about that.  She was working out her salvation in fear and trembling, just as Holy Writ told her to do.



Recently there have been stories about the state of Mother Theresa's faith during her ministry.  I'm not too sure how true they are and how well I really understood them, but it could make a point in the discussion of Catholicism and Purgatory.  

The story goes that Mother had a clear revelation from God...a moment of absolute certainty of His presence and her calling.  Upon this vision Mother established her work with the poor that made her a legend; through her lifelong dedication and hard labor.  After her death Mother's diaries were released.  They showed that she lost that clarity of her vision.  While I don't know that she actually doubted her faith, she was as a minimum saddened that she did not retain that initial clarity and feeling of close communion with God.  She clearly suffered some pain about the loss of her certain faith, which could be sort of a Purgatory on earth.  Despite any doubts, she continued her work until her death, a true act of faith.  

In the Catholic Faith there is a difference between the basic tenets of the Church (i.e. that God is our creator and Jesus is our savior) and doctrine of the Church.  Purgatory is referred to a doctrine.  It was established by a council of Bishops and is therefore not an infallible decree of the pope; though Popes have mentioned and discussed Purgatory and it is generally accepted.   (I could quote additional biblical references for the development of this doctrine, but they are by no means definitive.)

The official teaching on Purgatory seems purposefully sketchy.  "Copying and Pasting" from Father John Dietzen:

"official documents of church teaching clearly do not intend to offer physical details about purgatory. During one of his addresses on life after death, Pope John Paul II challenged us to take a fresh look at purgatory, heaven and hell. When we hear those words, we often pay more attention to the popular images than to the doctrines themselves.

Purgatory is not a “place,” he remarked, but a “condition” of purification for the saved whereby God “frees them from their imperfections.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks cautiously on the subject, calling purgatory not a location but a process of purgation, of cleansing.

Part of that cleansing preparation for eternal life with God could be in the process of dying itself. Of course, the world after death would not seem to have hours and years as we experience them on this side of eternity. Could it be that the burst of awareness of the majesty and glory of God immediately after death will, by divine grace, be so acute and intense that an entire purgation and readiness for life with God could occur in an instant?"

This could jive with HotCoffee's belief that there is some price to pay for our sins, but not an extended stay outside of Heaven.  

There is to me an inherent fairness in the view of Atonement.  This brings to mind the parable in Matthew chapter 21 about the father that asks his two sons to complete a duty.  The first one tells his father that he will do it and then goes off and does not.  The second son tells his father no, but then repents and completes the task.  Jesus praises the second son.  Both sons start out as children of the father (i.e. saved), though one falls off and losses favor, the other lapses and then repents.  Completing the father's request (an action of atonement) is the key to the second son's favor.  

I personally accepted Jesus as my Savior in a typical BAC way in around 1976, just before I went away to college.  I did this in all sincerity and faith. In spite of that I spent my years of college and several years after gradualtion falling progressively away from my faith and frequently acting very unchristianly.  In the BAC view I had already secured my Salvation, but I had certainly not earned it. EDIT OK OK  I know I didn't earn Salvation Jesus did, but now we have have our most basic differences on what exactly the Bible says we must do to receive it.  

P. S.  Previously ignored posters are still ignored.


----------



## Starman3000m

hotcoffee said:


>



Yes, hotcoffee, Glory and Praise belong to Almighty God for His Truth and His Promises of Eternal Life through our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ!

*God's Assurance* (my Copy & Paste from The Holy Bible)

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. (Romans 5:8-11)


----------



## ItalianScallion

hotcoffee said:


> Like I said... I'm not sure....what the consequence would be....  Jesus will intercede for me...
> 
> He's already taken on my sin... he already paid for it.... but I'm pretty sure He will soothe my guilt with justice....


1 Corinthians 3 makes it clear that our salvation will not be the issue at the Judgment. "The consequences" will be loss of reward, determined by our actions (or lack of) AFTER the day we got saved. We can get into Heaven with no good works but I wouldn't want to stand in front of Jesus after all He did without anything to show for it. 
Good comments hotcoffee! Nice to have some new backup here.


Im_Me said:


> Recently there have been stories about the state of Mother Theresa's faith during her ministry.  I'm not too sure how true they are and how well I really understood them, but it could make a point in the discussion of Catholicism and Purgatory.
> This is so neat! I'm on ignore so MeMe won't see this until someone quotes it. Purgatory still doesn't exist..
> Purgatory is referred to a doctrine.  It was established by a council of Bishops and is therefore not an infallible decree of the pope; though Popes have mentioned and discussed Purgatory and it is generally accepted.   (I could quote additional biblical references for the development of this doctrine, but they are by no means definitive.)
> See? It IS man made, not biblical. And there are no biblical references for it so don't even try to.
> The official teaching on Purgatory seems purposefully sketchy.  "Copying and Pasting" from Father John Dietzen:
> "Purgatory is not a “place,” he remarked, but a “condition” of purification for the saved whereby God “frees them from their imperfections.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks cautiously on the subject, calling purgatory not a location but a process of purgation, of cleansing.
> Part of that cleansing preparation for eternal life with God could be in the process of dying itself. Of course, the world after death would not seem to have hours and years as we experience them on this side of eternity. Could it be that the burst of awareness of the majesty and glory of God immediately after death will, by divine grace, be so acute and intense that an entire purgation and readiness for life with God could occur in an instant?"
> Uh, hey Bevis, huh huh, they think Jesus died so people could go to purgatory and repeat what He died for...
> 
> There is to me an inherent fairness in the view of Atonement.  This brings to mind the parable in Matthew chapter 21 about the father that asks his two sons to complete a duty.  The first one tells his father that he will do it and then goes off and does not.  The second son tells his father no, but then repents and completes the task.  Jesus praises the second son.  Both sons start out as children of the father (i.e. saved), though one falls off and losses favor, the other lapses and then repents.  Completing the father's request (an action of atonement) is the key to the second son's favor.
> You people are so set on doing it yourself when Jesus did it all. I pity you poor souls!
> I personally accepted Jesus as my Savior in a typical BAC way in around 1976, just before I went away to college.  I did this in all sincerity and faith. In spite of that I spent my years of college and several years after gradualtion falling progressively away from my faith and frequently acting very unchristianly.  In the BAC view I had already secured my Salvation, but I had certainly not earned it. EDIT OK OK  I know I didn't earn Salvation Jesus did, but now we have have our most basic differences on what exactly the Bible says we must do to receive it.
> 
> P. S.  Previously ignored posters are still ignored.


All cults require works to be acceptable to God, why do what the cults do? Shouldn't Christians be doing what God says to do? We are saved by grace and NOT of works so that no one can brag about what they did? Where in the Bible does God set the penance requirements? How do 3 hail mary's atone for sins? 
Too bad you can't see this....literally and figuratively.


----------



## itsbob

PsyOps said:


> So, no answer?



To prove he existed without the work of fiction called the Bible, probably not possible.. or to use the same written record used to write the bible, or the Dead Sea Scrolls probably couldn't.. 

Which leads to the question, why aren't there more records of Jesus?  He had his disciples.. Peter, Paul, John.. Ringo and the lot.. but with them, following Jesus, were scholars.. that would have SHOULD have recorded SOMEthing even if in a personal journal.  Physicians.. priests.. all sorts of educated, professional.. SMART people of their time.. and NOT one of them kept their own record?  What's the probability of THAT happening?  Nobody wrote an account of the time of the Loaves and Fishes??  ALL the people that he fed that day, and not one person thought to record it?  We get the story 10 generations later, the story being handed down from father to son.. who in the world would know what the truth is at that point, other than it's NOT what ended up in the Bible.

But the Chances are REAL good a boy was born in Bethlehem in that year, about that time.. chances are also as good the a boy born that year would have the name "Jesus" of Y'eshua.. I bet there were probably hundreds of boys born that year with that name.. 

Just like I can pick any day of last year, and bet somewhere a boy named William was born.. and I can pick almost any town out of the US and the same would be true for last year.. it's all probablility.. Of course if you write the story AFTER the fact, you can get all the facts you want to match up to your fiction.    



How much of the rest of the story is true??  Nobody knows.. I can bet not 100% of it, and I doubt 50% of it.


----------



## hotcoffee

I don't know where to look it up.... but Jesus was in the court records of Rome.  

I dare say the loss of such a body as that of the Christ would have caused some concern for the state as well.  

The payment of the 30 pieces of Silver must appear somewhere in the accounting.

The census of the day should have shown that Joseph took his espoused from Nazareth to Bethlehem.

The death of John the Baptist must have gotten some paperwork as well....

Historically... Jesus has been said to exist even by the skeptics.... the miracles seem to be a tad bit hard to explain.... 

Living in Faith is much more difficult than accounting for 30 pieces of Silver....


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> OK but according to her own words, she still wasn't sure and also believed that anyone could work out their own salvation within the bounds of their own faith and belief in whatever God they were taught to believe in.
> Not my words - hers:
> 
> (excerpt)
> 
> “Did you realize that mother Teresa stated: "What we are all trying to do by our work, by serving the people, is to come closer to God. If in coming face to face with God we accept Him in our lives, then we are converting. We become a better Hindu, a better Muslim, a better Catholic, a better whatever we are, and then by being better we come closer and closer to Him. If we accept Him fully in our lives, then that is conversion. What approach would I use? For me, naturally, it would be a Catholic one, for you it may be Hindu, for someone else, Buddhist, according to one's conscience. What God is in your mind you must accept."
> [Desmond Doig, "Mother Teresa: Her People and Her Work", William Collins Sons & Co., Ltd., Glascow, 1976, page 136, as quoted by Constance Cumbey, in "A Planned Deception: The Staging of a New Age Messiah", Pointe Publishers, East Detroit, Michigan, ISBN 0-935897-00-3, page 108] [Emphasis ours]
> 
> “Mother Teresa also stated: "There are many Hindu ladies who want our way of life, the life of poverty, prayer, sacrifice and service. They want the life of a Missionary. But they wish to retain their faith, their own belief in God ... We live that they may die, so that they may go home according to what is written in the book, be it written according to Hindu, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Catholic, or Protestant, or any other belief ... We give them whatever they ask according to their faith." [Ibid]
> 
> Mother Teresa



Yes, I have read the biographies on M.T. and I know full well that she had "dark nights of the soul".  A number of years ago I heard that the closer you are to God, the harder Satan will work on you. It makes complete sense, too.  Why would he expend energy on those he has in his grasp?  Just as God wants all in Heaven, Satan wants all in Hell.  Regarding M.T., I would think it was Satan trying to get her to stumble in doing God's Will in her life.  She accomplished it as far as I can tell.  To persevere when you don't _feel _anything is the sign of faith.  Mormons will tell you that you will _feel_ the Holy Spirit moving you if you read the Book of Mormon.  I wonder how many people have liked the feeling of being told that they will one day be gods?  Feelings do not determine Truth, action does. (no offense to Mormons, you are welcome to your faith journey)


----------



## libby

Im_Me said:


> Recently there have been stories about the state of Mother Theresa's faith during her ministry.  I'm not too sure how true they are and how well I really understood them, but it could make a point in the discussion of Catholicism and Purgatory.
> 
> The story goes that Mother had a clear revelation from God...a moment of absolute certainty of His presence and her calling.  Upon this vision Mother established her work with the poor that made her a legend; through her lifelong dedication and hard labor.  After her death Mother's diaries were released.  They showed that she lost that clarity of her vision.  While I don't know that she actually doubted her faith, she was as a minimum saddened that she did not retain that initial clarity and feeling of close communion with God.  She clearly suffered some pain about the loss of her certain faith, which could be sort of a Purgatory on earth.  Despite any doubts, she continued her work until her death, a true act of faith.
> 
> In the Catholic Faith there is a difference between the basic tenets of the Church (i.e. that God is our creator and Jesus is our savior) and doctrine of the Church.  Purgatory is referred to a doctrine.  It was established by a council of Bishops and is therefore not an infallible decree of the pope; though Popes have mentioned and discussed Purgatory and it is generally accepted.   (I could quote additional biblical references for the development of this doctrine, but they are by no means definitive.)
> 
> The official teaching on Purgatory seems purposefully sketchy.  "Copying and Pasting" from Father John Dietzen:
> 
> "official documents of church teaching clearly do not intend to offer physical details about purgatory. During one of his addresses on life after death, Pope John Paul II challenged us to take a fresh look at purgatory, heaven and hell. When we hear those words, we often pay more attention to the popular images than to the doctrines themselves.
> 
> Purgatory is not a “place,” he remarked, but a “condition” of purification for the saved whereby God “frees them from their imperfections.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks cautiously on the subject, calling purgatory not a location but a process of purgation, of cleansing.
> 
> Part of that cleansing preparation for eternal life with God could be in the process of dying itself. Of course, the world after death would not seem to have hours and years as we experience them on this side of eternity. Could it be that the burst of awareness of the majesty and glory of God immediately after death will, by divine grace, be so acute and intense that an entire purgation and readiness for life with God could occur in an instant?"
> 
> This could jive with HotCoffee's belief that there is some price to pay for our sins, but not an extended stay outside of Heaven.
> 
> There is to me an inherent fairness in the view of Atonement.  This brings to mind the parable in Matthew chapter 21 about the father that asks his two sons to complete a duty.  The first one tells his father that he will do it and then goes off and does not.  The second son tells his father no, but then repents and completes the task.  Jesus praises the second son.  Both sons start out as children of the father (i.e. saved), though one falls off and losses favor, the other lapses and then repents.  Completing the father's request (an action of atonement) is the key to the second son's favor.
> 
> I personally accepted Jesus as my Savior in a typical BAC way in around 1976, just before I went away to college.  I did this in all sincerity and faith. In spite of that I spent my years of college and several years after gradualtion falling progressively away from my faith and frequently acting very unchristianly.  In the BAC view I had already secured my Salvation, but I had certainly not earned it. EDIT OK OK  I know I didn't earn Salvation Jesus did, but now we have have our most basic differences on what exactly the Bible says we must do to receive it.
> 
> P. S.  Previously ignored posters are still ignored.



Hey I'm Me,
I'm sure Purgatory is doctrine, the Magesterium in union with the pope can make infallible statements.  I'm checking on the history and will get back.  
There are theologians that speculate that purgatory is more a "state of being" than an actual place, so it's the nature of purgatory that has not been defined as far as I know.



> In the Catholic Faith there is a difference between the basic tenets of the Church (i.e. that God is our creator and Jesus is our savior) and doctrine of the Church.  Purgatory is referred to a doctrine.  It was established by a council of Bishops and is therefore not an infallible decree of the pope; though Popes have mentioned and discussed Purgatory and it is generally accepted.   (I could quote additional biblical references for the development of this doctrine, but they are by no means definitive.)



Dogmas are the things we are required to believe, the Trinity, for example. Included in that "must believe" are Marian dogma that the BAC's here have such a hard time with; the Immaculate Conception for one.  What they fail to see is that these doctrines are Christocentric, they speak to who Christ is, not Mary except in a secondary sense.
Mary's perpetual virginity is taught as a doctrine, but it has not been formally declared as a dogma of  the Church.  
Disciplines are things that can change with the times, for instance a celibate priesthood.  The pope can change that if he wants to, or needs to.  A male priesthood is not up for discussion, it would be a dogma or doctrine.  
I'm open for correction from my fellow Catholics about the definitions of each (doctrine vs. dogma), but I"m pretty sure I have that right.


----------



## MissKitty

itsbob said:


> Thank you for proving the fallacy of the Bible..
> 
> As it is IMPOSSIBLE for a mortal being to be sinless, in deed and thought, if the Bible says Jesus was sinless, then the Bible is WRONG and is itself a fallacy.



Hey Bob.

Rom 3:10  	 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one...


Also....

Rom 3:20  	Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.




Don't they claim that good old JC was God in the FLESH?


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Dogmas are the things we are required to believe, the Trinity, for example. Included in that "must believe" are Marian dogma that the BAC's here have such a hard time with; the Immaculate Conception for one.



Not so fast libby. The Protestant/Evangelical/non-Denominational Born-Again Christian belief is this: Mary found favor with God and was indeed virgin and the conception of the Christ-Child, Jesus, was of the Holy Spirit. Jesus had no earthly father. As prophesied in the Old Testament and first recorded in the Bible Gospel of Matthew.

However, the RCC belief that Mary remained a "perpetual virgin" is not scriptural and on the contrary, Joseph and Mary consummated their marriage after Jesus was born and then children were born to them. As stated in the Holy Bible.

Also,, there is no Biblical reference or indication that states Mary was hereself conceived and born through an "Immaculate conception" as I have heard others in the RCC say that this is what they are taught to believe.

Also, there is no Biblical proof in the RCC claim that Mary "ascended" into heaven, as Jesus did.

Apart from the Immaculate Conception, it appears that the RCC has built another theology around Mary that is required of parishioners to accept and believe and which elevates her into a type of Mother Godess. 

Praying to any one other than God through Christ alone is not Biblical nor is it in line with the words of Jesus in (John 14:6)


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> Not so fast libby. The Protestant/Evangelical/non-Denominational Born-Again Christian belief is this: Mary found favor with God and was indeed virgin and the conception of the Christ-Child, Jesus, was of the Holy Spirit. Jesus had no earthly father. As prophesied in the Old Testament and first recorded in the Bible Gospel of Matthew.
> 
> However, the RCC belief that Mary remained a "perpetual virgin" is not scriptural and on the contrary, Joseph and Mary consummated their marriage after Jesus was born and then children were born to them. As stated in the Holy Bible.
> 
> Also,, there is no Biblical reference or indication that states Mary was hereself conceived and born through an "Immaculate conception" as I have heard others in the RCC say that this is what they are taught to believe.
> 
> Also, there is no Biblical proof in the RCC claim that Mary "ascended" into heaven, as Jesus did.
> 
> Apart from the Immaculate Conception, it appears that the RCC has built another theology around Mary that is required of parishioners to accept and believe and which elevates her into a type of Mother Godess.
> 
> Praying to any one other than God through Christ alone is not Biblical nor is it in line with the words of Jesus in (John 14:6)



Not so fast yourself, Starman.

The Bible does _not_ state that they consumated their marriage right after Jesus' birth.  If it states such, show me where.  If not, don't reject everything I believe out-of-hand just because "it's not in Scripture".  At worst, the Bible is silent about their consumation; at best, it is well implied just as the Trinity.  As for Jesus' brothers and sisters, such a student of Scripture as yourself can easily see that brothers/bretheren etc. is used quite often in the Bible to describe relationships that we know are NOT siblings.  Do I need to make a list for you, or can you have a discussion in good faith and not condemn everything Catholic?

Regarding Mary's Immaculate Conception can be reasoned, but I won't bother going over it with you for obvious reasons.

Lastly, be very careful what words you use.  See RC theologians/popes, etc. are very careful.  Mary did NOT "ascend" into Heaven, Jesus did.  Ascension is done by one's own power; Mary did not go to Heaven under her own power.  Mary was _ASSUMED_ into Heaven by the power of her Beloved Son, Jesus Christ.  The RCC is not sloppy about the words they use.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Not so fast yourself, Starman.
> 
> The Bible does _not_ state that they consumated their marriage right after Jesus' birth.  If it states such, show me where.  If not, don't reject everything I believe out-of-hand just because "it's not in Scripture".  At worst, the Bible is silent about their consumation; at best, it is well implied just as the Trinity.



Oh, my dear libby, I thought you said you "knew your Bible". Here is what the Holy Bible states (it's in your Bible too) regarding how Joseph did not become intimate with Mary until after Jesus was born:

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 
*And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son:* and he called his name JESUS. (Matthew 1:24-25)

Do you suppose that might indicate that Joseph didn't "know her" in the sense of sexual intimacy or do you think it means Joseph didn't know who Mary was???? 



> As for Jesus' brothers and sisters, such a student of Scripture as yourself can easily see that brothers/bretheren etc. is used quite often in the Bible to describe relationships that we know are NOT siblings.  Do I need to make a list for you, or can you have a discussion in good faith and not condemn everything Catholic?



Sorry, but when Jesus' associates are usually mentioned, they are called "disciples" and when the Gospels refer to other believers they are called "bretheren." The references to Jesus' bretheren and sisters in the Bible is a reference to siblings.



> Regarding Mary's Immaculate Conception can be reasoned, but I won't bother going over it with you for obvious reasons.
> 
> Lastly, be very careful what words you use.  See RC theologians/popes, etc. are very careful.  Mary did NOT "ascend" into Heaven, Jesus did.  Ascension is done by one's own power; Mary did not go to Heaven under her own power.  Mary was _ASSUMED_ into Heaven by the power of her Beloved Son, Jesus Christ.  The RCC is not sloppy about the words they use.



So, in other words, the thief on the cross was able to be with Jesus in Paradise that very day of their crucifixion, but it wasn't until later that Mary was "assumed" into heaven? Do you know the year that the RCC adopted that belief about Mary's Assumption into their theology?


----------



## itsbob

hotcoffee said:


> I don't know where to look it up.... but Jesus was in the court records of Rome.



He should have been, he was, afterall, a CRIMINAL!!

A sinner so to speak.


----------



## ItalianScallion

libby said:


> Mary did not go to Heaven under her own power.  Mary was _ASSUMED_ into Heaven by the power of her Beloved Son, Jesus Christ.  The RCC is not sloppy about the words they use.


There's only one "assumption" going on here cupcake and it isn't Mary's...


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Lastly, be very careful what words you use.  See RC theologians/popes, etc. are very careful.  Mary did NOT "ascend" into Heaven, Jesus did.  Ascension is done by one's own power; Mary did not go to Heaven under her own power.  Mary was _ASSUMED_ into Heaven by the power of her Beloved Son, Jesus Christ.  The RCC is not sloppy about the words they use.



And this is where in the Bible?


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> And this is where in the Bible?



Where is Trinity in the Bible?


----------



## hotcoffee

itsbob said:


> He should have been, he was, afterall, a CRIMINAL!!
> 
> A sinner so to speak.



He was tried in Rome....  The Roman Soldiers guarded His tomb...


----------



## hotcoffee

Nucklesack said:


> So your saying you should submit?



When Jesus asks me to do something.... I will... to the best of my human ability....


----------



## itsbob

libby said:


> Where is Trinity in the Bible?



I don't know where it is in the Bible.. But I like  Trinity in the Movies..

They Call Me Trinity..

Trinity is Still My Name

Troublemakers

Sons of Trinity..


----------



## libby

itsbob said:


> I don't know where it is in the Bible.. But I like  Trinity in the Movies..
> 
> They Call Me Trinity..
> 
> Trinity is Still My Name
> 
> Troublemakers
> 
> Sons of Trinity..



Very nice, but my challenge is for hotcoffee.  His/her doctrines cannot be implied or understood by reason, it must be explicitly stated.
Same with Starman and IT.  What fits their theology they go with.  What doesn't must be some pre-ordained exception.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Where is Trinity in the Bible?



Trinity is only the given definition for understanding that the Godhead of Creation is uniquely comprised of and revealed in three facets. It is apparent, by Jesus' Words what the Three-In-One are:

*For there are three that bear record in heaven,* *the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:* *and these three are one.* (1 John 5:7)

So, can you please show us where does the Holy Bible give any kind of indication that Jesus' mother, Mary, was going to be "assumed" into heaven?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Where is Trinity in the Bible?



And that answers my question how?


----------



## PsyOps

baydoll said:


> And this is where in the Bible?



Read Ephesians chapter 2.


----------



## libby

> Starman3000m said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trinity is only the given definition for understanding that the Godhead of Creation is uniquely comprised of and revealed in three facets. It is apparent, by Jesus' Words what the Three-In-One are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is the definition of purgatory, yet you and yours consistently demand that Catholic doctrine is anti-Biblical if it is not their verbatim.  Now that the shoe is on the other foot, this is your answer.
> Why don't you accept my answers this way?
Click to expand...


----------



## hotcoffee

libby said:


> Very nice, but my challenge is for hotcoffee.  His/her doctrines cannot be implied or understood by reason, it must be explicitly stated.
> Same with Starman and IT.  What fits their theology they go with.  What doesn't must be some pre-ordained exception.



I'm sorry libby.... what was the question?  I'm a Christian but not a scholar... but I'll do my best to answer....


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> And that answers my question how?



It doesn't.  But you cannot issue a challenge to me to defend/explain my theology that you cannot use to defend/explain your own.


----------



## libby

hotcoffee said:


> I'm sorry libby.... what was the question?  I'm a Christian but not a scholar... but I'll do my best to answer....



Geez, I don't know.  I'll have to go back and look.  Maybe I'm confusing you with Baykat.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> And that is the definition of purgatory, yet you and yours consistently demand that Catholic doctrine is anti-Biblical if it is not their verbatim.  Now that the shoe is on the other foot, this is your answer.
> Why don't you accept my answers this way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, libby, the difference is that Jesus' Words specifically point to the three facets of a Triune Godhead from which the term "Trinity" is applied to mean the same thing.
> 
> *For there are three that bear record in heaven,* *the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:* *and these three are one.*
> (1 John 5:7)
> 
> However, please find any reference in the Holy Bible (not RCC supplemental teachings) where Jesus tells believers that He offers to save them through faith but first they will have to undergo a certain amount of punishment in a spiritual half-way realm called "purgatory" before they can enter into Heaven.
> 
> As to the "Assumption of Mary," apparently this did not become part of RCC teaching until the year 1950 as proclaimed by pope Pius XII. The claim is that Mary was "assumed bodily into heaven shortly after her death". If that was the real case, why aren't there independent and earlier records of this happening but instead it took 1,950 years for this to be taught by the edict of the pope of the RCC?
Click to expand...


----------



## libby

> As to the "Assumption of Mary," apparently this did not become part of RCC teaching until the year 1950 as proclaimed by pope Pius XII. The claim is that Mary was "assumed bodily into heaven shortly after her death". If that was the real case, why aren't there independent and earlier records of this happening but instead it took 1,950 years for this to be taught by the edict of the pope of the RCC?



The Early Church Fathers on
The Assumption


The doctrine of the Assumption was one that developed over time. It was not something new but rather the logical result of what was already known (Mary’s Immaculate Conception). 

Pseudo – Melito

If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: "Be it done according to your will" (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17 [A.D. 300]).

Timothy of Jerusalem

Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).

John the Theologian

The Lord said to his Mother, "Let your heart rejoice and be glad. For every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit. Every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and comfort and support and confidence, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens". . . And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise (The Dormition of Mary [A.D. 400]).

Gregory of Tours

[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord's chosen ones. . . (Eight Books of Miracles 1:4 [A.D. 575]).

Theoteknos of Livias

It was fitting ... that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory ... should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God (Homily on the Assumption [ca. A.D. 600]). 

Modestus of Jerusalem

As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him (Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae [ante A.D. 634]).

Germanus of Constantinople

You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life (Sermon I [A.D. 683]).

John Damascene

It was fitting that the she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped when giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father, It was fitting that God's Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God (Dormition of Mary [A.D. 697])

Gregorian Sacramentary

Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten Thy Son our Lord incarnate from herself (Gregorian Sacramentary, Veneranda [ante A.D. 795]).

Copyright © 2004 StayCatholic.com


----------



## libby

*www.catholic.com*

Several Bible passages offer implicit evidence that Mary was assumed into heaven. Both Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven (Heb. 11:5, 2 Kgs. 2:11). Also, in Matthew 27:52-53 one can read about saints whose bodies left the grave after the Resurrection of Christ. The early resurrection of these saints anticipated the rising of those who die in faith, all of who will be assumed one day to receive their glorified bodies. Belief in the assumption of Mary is simply the belief that God granted her this gift early, as he appears to have done for others in Matthew 27:52-53.

The Scriptures also promise that those who suffer with Christ will be glorified with him (Rom. 8:17), so it is fitting that she whose heart was pierced through her Son's suffering would receive her glorification in a unique manner. Paul calls Christians "God's co-workers" (1 Cor. 3:9), and there was no co-worker of Christ who was linked so intimately in the work of salvation as was Mary.


----------



## hotcoffee

libby said:


> Several Bible passages offer implicit evidence that Mary was assumed into heaven. Both Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven (Heb. 11:5, 2 Kgs. 2:11). Also, in Matthew 27:52-53 one can read about saints whose bodies left the grave after the Resurrection of Christ. The early resurrection of these saints anticipated the rising of those who die in faith, all of who will be assumed one day to receive their glorified bodies. Belief in the assumption of Mary is simply the belief that God granted her this gift early, as he appears to have done for others in Matthew 27:52-53.
> 
> The Scriptures also promise that those who suffer with Christ will be glorified with him (Rom. 8:17), so it is fitting that she whose heart was pierced through her Son's suffering would receive her glorification in a unique manner. Paul calls Christians "God's co-workers" (1 Cor. 3:9), and there was no co-worker of Christ who was linked so intimately in the work of salvation as was Mary.



Libby...  While I am at Awe with what it would be like to give birth to the Son of God....  And know that My God and My Lord Jesus Christ would easily bring Mary to Heaven in the blink of an eye because God and the Son are very capable of miracles....

I have a certain amount of anxiety about people praying to Mary... a mortal....

In Mark 9:4 we see Elijah and Moses with Jesus....

"And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus"  

We don't pray to them.....  apparently these two men were a very intricate part of the plan....

I'm not saying it's wrong but it's not for me....  I like talking with Jesus only...  because why would I go to Mary when Jesus is the one that died for me on the Cross....


----------



## Im_Me

libby said:


> Several Bible passages offer implicit evidence that Mary was assumed into heaven. Both Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven (Heb. 11:5, 2 Kgs. 2:11). Also, in Matthew 27:52-53 one can read about saints whose bodies left the grave after the Resurrection of Christ. The early resurrection of these saints anticipated the rising of those who die in faith, all of who will be assumed one day to receive their glorified bodies. Belief in the assumption of Mary is simply the belief that God granted her this gift early, as he appears to have done for others in Matthew 27:52-53.
> 
> The Scriptures also promise that those who suffer with Christ will be glorified with him (Rom. 8:17), so it is fitting that she whose heart was pierced through her Son's suffering would receive her glorification in a unique manner. Paul calls Christians "God's co-workers" (1 Cor. 3:9), and there was no co-worker of Christ who was linked so intimately in the work of salvation as was Mary.



There is a wonderful tretise on Mary that is given in podcast form under the title "Mary and the Book of Revelation"   by Taylor Marshall. It is quite long but worth the time (I enjoyed it inspite of a long day and a bad case of ADHD).  Taylor Marshall belongs to a group called the Catholic Information Center... It will come up if you type that title in the browser.  I kept poking at stuff untill I got it to open.  Look under the picture of Mary for the play button.  It's not there sometimes.

The basis of his thesis on the Assumption is Rev 11:19-12:17 which talks about a vision of a women and child, but there are other supporting scripture, too numerous to note included.

"Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm. 


A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 
She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.  
Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon,  with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems. 
Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth. She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. 5 Her child was caught up to God and his throne. The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days.  Then war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels battled against the dragon. The dragon and its angels fought back, 
but they did not prevail and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world, was thrown down to earth, and its angels were thrown down with it. Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: "Now have salvation and power come, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Anointed. For the accuser 10 of our brothers is cast out, who accuses them before our God day and night.  They conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; love for life did not deter them from death. Therefore, rejoice, you heavens, and you who dwell in them. But woe to you, earth and sea, for the Devil has come down to you in great fury, for he knows he has but a short time." When the dragon saw that it had been thrown down to the earth, it pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 

But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly to her place in the desert, where, far from the serpent, she was taken care of for a year, two years, and a half-year. The serpent, however, spewed a torrent of water out of his mouth after the woman to sweep her away with the current. 

But the earth helped the woman and opened its mouth and swallowed the flood that the dragon spewed out of its mouth. 
Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus. It took its position on the sand of the sea."

I may become a more Marian Catholic after all.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Several Bible passages offer implicit evidence that Mary was assumed into heaven. Both Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven (Heb. 11:5, 2 Kgs. 2:11). Also, in Matthew 27:52-53 one can read about saints whose bodies left the grave after the Resurrection of Christ. The early resurrection of these saints anticipated the rising of those who die in faith, all of who will be assumed one day to receive their glorified bodies. Belief in the assumption of Mary is simply the belief that God granted her this gift early, as he appears to have done for others in Matthew 27:52-53.
> 
> The Scriptures also promise that those who suffer with Christ will be glorified with him (Rom. 8:17), so it is fitting that she whose heart was pierced through her Son's suffering would receive her glorification in a unique manner. Paul calls Christians "God's co-workers" (1 Cor. 3:9), and there was no co-worker of Christ who was linked so intimately in the work of salvation as was Mary.



libby, is it true that if a Catholic rejects the teaching of Mary's Assumption into heaven it will not be forgiven and they would lose their salvation in the church and be bound for hell?

*Article: * (excerpt)

"The Roman Catholic doctrine of the assumption of Mary teaches that she was assumed body and soul into heaven either without dying or shortly after death. This extraordinary claim was only officially declared to be a dogma of Roman Catholic faith in 1950, though it had been believed by many for hundreds of years. *To dispute this doctrine, according to Rome’s teaching, would result in the loss of salvation.* The official teaching of the Assumption comes from the decree Munificentissimus Deus by pope Pius XII: "
...
"*Hence, if anyone, which God forbid, should dare wilfully to deny or call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith...*It is forbidden to any man to change this, Our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. *If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul"*
 (Munificentissimus Deus, Selected Documenst of Pope Pius XII (Washington: National Catholic Welfare Conference), 38, 40, 44-45, 47).

Source: Christian Resources
(bold, mine)


----------



## ItalianScallion

Im_Me said:


> The basis of his thesis on the Assumption is Rev 11:19-12:17 which talks about a vision of a women and child, but there are other supporting scripture, too numerous to note included.
> 
> But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly to her place in the desert, where, far from the serpent, she was taken care of for a year, two years, and a half-year.
> 
> But the earth helped the woman and opened its mouth and swallowed the flood that the dragon spewed out of its mouth.


You really should NOT attempt to interpret Revelation. You have enough trouble with first grade stuff here. A shame you can't see these posts anymore. 
The woman spoken of in Rev 12 is SYMBOLIC of the Messianic (Jewish Converts to Christianity) Community. IT HAS NADA TO DO WITH MARY! 
It shows that Christ would come from the Jewish line.


----------



## libby

hotcoffee said:


> Libby...  While I am at Awe with what it would be like to give birth to the Son of God....  And know that My God and My Lord Jesus Christ would easily bring Mary to Heaven in the blink of an eye because God and the Son are very capable of miracles....
> 
> I have a certain amount of anxiety about people praying to Mary... a mortal....
> 
> In Mark 9:4 we see Elijah and Moses with Jesus....
> 
> "And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus"
> 
> We don't pray to them.....  apparently these two men were a very intricate part of the plan....
> 
> I'm not saying it's wrong but it's not for me....  I like talking with Jesus only...  because why would I go to Mary when Jesus is the one that died for me on the Cross....



Many people feel exactly as you do, and it by NO means a requirement for Catholics to pray to Mary.  To pray just means to talk to someone.  I've asked before on the forums, but you seem to be new, so I'll ask again.  Do you have a loved one who has died?  I talk to my own father often, wishing I knew if he was happy with the way I'm teaching his grandchildren.  
I believe people in Heaven are more alive that people on earth.  We are the ones still facing the challenge, whereas they have already been rewarded.
Additionally, as you pointed out, we do have Biblical evidence of others being, body and soul, in Heaven.  It seems to me that Jesus would do at least as much for His own mother.  Just as He obeyed to fulfill all righteousness, "Honor thy mother and father" was not the least of the commandments.  Well, He gave glory to His Father, why not His mother?

Prayers to Mary and other saints merely ask them to pray for us, as the beloved friends of Jesus that they are.  No different than asking people here on earth to pray for you.


----------



## libby

ItalianScallion said:


> You really should NOT attempt to interpret Revelation. You have enough trouble with first grade stuff here. A shame you can't see these posts anymore.
> The woman spoken of in Rev 12 is SYMBOLIC of the Messianic (Jewish Converts to Christianity) Community. IT HAS NADA TO DO WITH MARY!
> It shows that Christ would come from the Jewish line.



Yeah, IT.  The baby is literal, the dragon is literal, but the woman is not.  We see where you get your context.


----------



## libby

I may become a more Marian Catholic after all.[/QUOTE]

I'll point out a couple of other "coincidences".

We know Jesus is the new Adam.  Adam effected the fall of man, correct?  Why didn't mankind fall after Eve?  She was the first human to disobey, but God's grace was not lost until Adam ate.  Eve got the ball rolling, but Adam made it happen.
Same with Jesus and Mary. Mary did not save us, but she got the ball rolling with her cooperation with the Will of God.  Only Jesus effected our salvation.

The Ark of the Covenant.
God the Holy Spirit overshadowed and then indwelled the Ark.  The Ark became the dwelling place of the presence of God [Exodus 40:34-35]
 God the Holy Spirit overshadowed and the indwelled Mary.  At that time Mary’s womb became the dwelling place of the presence of God [Luke 1:35].

The Ark contained the 10 Commandments [the words of God in stone], a pot of manna, and Aaron’s rod that came back to life [Deuteronomy 10:3-5; Hebrews 9:4].
 The womb of the Virgin contained Jesus: the living Word of God enfleshed, the living bread from heaven, “the Branch” (Messianic title) who would die but come back to life [Luke 1:35].

The Ark traveled to the hill country of Judah to rest in the house of Obed-edom [2 Samuel 6:1-11]
 Mary traveled to the hill country of Judah (Judea) to the home of Elizabeth [Luke 1:39]

Dressed in a priestly ephod, King David approached the Ark and danced and leapt for joy [2 Samuel 6:14]
 John the Baptist, son of a priest who would himself become a priest, leapt for joy in Elizabeth’s womb at the approach of Mary [Luke 1:43]

David shouted for joy in the presence of God and the holy Ark [2 Samuel 6:15]
 Elizabeth exclaimed with a loud cry of joy in the presence God within Mary [Luke 1:42]

David asked, “How is it that the Ark of the Lord comes to me?” [2 Samuel 6:9]
 Elizabeth asks, “Why is this granted unto me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” [Luke 1:43]

The Ark remained in the house of Obed-edom for 3 months [2 Samuel 6:11]
 Mary remained in the house of her cousin Elizabeth for 3 months [Luke 1:56].

The house of Obed-edom was blessed by the presence of the Ark [2 Samuel 6:11]
 The word “blessed” is used 3 times in Luke 1:39-45 concerning Mary at Elizabeth’s house.

The Ark returned to its sanctuary and eventually ends up in Jerusalem where the presence and glory of God is revealed in the newly built Temple [2 Samuel 6:12; 1 Kings 8:9-11]
 Mary returned home from visiting Elizabeth and eventually comes to Jerusalem, where she presents God the Son in the Temple [Luke 1:56; 2:21-22] 

God made Aaron’s rod (which would be kept in the Ark) return to life and budded to prove he was the legitimate High Priest [Numbers 17:8].
 God would resurrect His Son, who had become enfleshed in Mary’s womb and born to bring salvation to all mankind, to prove He is the eternal High Priest [Hebrews 4:14].

When the Ark was outside the Holy of Holies [when it was being transported] it was to be covered with a blue veil [Numbers 4:4-6]
 In Mary’s appearances outside of heaven visionaries testify that she wears a blue veil.

In Revelation 11:19 John sees the Ark of the Covenant in heaven [this is the last verse of chapter 11]
 In Revelation 12:1 John sees Mary in heaven.  It is the same vision Juan Diego saw of Mary in 1531—the Woman clothed with the sun and


----------



## baydoll

PsyOps said:


> Read Ephesians chapter 2.



Okay I just read that whole chapter and darned if I can see the concept of Mary's 'Assumption' in it---perhaps you could narrow it down a little further or point it out to me please? 

Thanks!


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> It doesn't.  But you cannot issue a challenge to me to defend/explain my theology that you cannot use to defend/explain your own.



You don't believe in the Trinity? Your Church does. And where does your Church point to it's belief in the Trinity? In Scripture.  


Actually Starman did a wonderful job showing you the concept of Trinity in Scripture. There are many such passages in Scripture obviously pointing it out. And since Mary's 'Assumption' is such an important 'truth' in your Church,  you should also be able to point to it's concept in Scripture as well.


----------



## Im_Me

libby said:


> Yeah, IT.  The baby is literal, the dragon is literal, but the woman is not.  We see where you get your context.



Good point.  I saw IT's response in your quote (I still have him on ignore, but it's not perfect as as a way to shut him out.  Did he have any smileys in the post?).  

I wonder where I was supposed to have interpreted anything?  I just copied and pasted and cited a potential source of an interpretation.  

Some of the info in your last post is also in the webcast I referenced.  It provides a foundation of the Marian view, but it not concrete enough for people whe see only black and white in the Bible, to the point where they have to pick and choose the verses they see.

P.s. Have a great day!


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> The Early Church Fathers on
> The Assumption
> 
> 
> The doctrine of the Assumption was one that developed over time. It was not something new but rather the logical result of what was already known (Mary’s Immaculate Conception).




So let me get this straight: in order to 'arrive' at this 'truth',  one must go  outside of Scripture many many years after the fact to find this 'truth'? 

And if this 'truth' wasn't something 'new', then we should be able to see quite a number of Christians before 300 AD saying something about it, shouldn't we?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Several Bible passages offer implicit evidence that Mary was assumed into heaven.



Oh really? Where? 





> Both Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven (Heb. 11:5, 2 Kgs. 2:11).



Yes and noticed those passages IMPLICITLY tells us in great detail how  those two were assumed in Heaven--certainly there would be a passage (or two or three) in the same Scripture implicitly stating in great detail for Mary as well. 

Perhaps you could point all those passages that implicitly says that Mary was assumed in the same way as Enoch and Elijah was to us? 

Thanks. : )


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Yeah, IT.  The baby is literal, the dragon is literal, but the woman is not.  We see where you get your context.




So do you think the 'Woman' of Revelation 12 is 'literally' Mary? Yes or no?


----------



## baydoll

Im_Me said:


> Good point.  I saw IT's response in your quote (I still have him on ignore, but it's not perfect as as a way to shut him out.  Did he have any smileys in the post?).
> 
> I wonder where I was supposed to have interpreted anything?  I just copied and pasted and cited a potential source of an interpretation.
> 
> Some of the info in your last post is also in the webcast I referenced.  It provides a foundation of the Marian view, but it not concrete enough for people whe see only black and white in the Bible, to the point where they have to pick and choose the verses they see.




How about you? Do you believe the Woman of Revelation 12 is Mary? Yes or no?



> P.s. Have a great day



Why thanks!! You too!


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Many people feel exactly as you do, and it by NO means a requirement for Catholics to pray to Mary.  To pray just means to talk to someone.  I've asked before on the forums, but you seem to be new, so I'll ask again.  Do you have a loved one who has died?  I talk to my own father often, wishing I knew if he was happy with the way I'm teaching his grandchildren.



Do people in Purgatory hear prayers? 




> I believe people in Heaven are more alive that people on earth.  We are the ones still facing the challenge, whereas they have already been rewarded.
> Additionally, as you pointed out, we do have Biblical evidence of others being, body and soul, in Heaven.  It seems to me that Jesus would do at least as much for His own mother.  Just as He obeyed to fulfill all righteousness, "Honor thy mother and father" was not the least of the commandments. ?



So does 'honor' mean 'praying to' as well? 





> Well, He gave glory to His Father, why not His mother?



Because His mommy isn't God do you think? 



> Prayers to Mary and other saints merely ask them to pray for us, as the beloved friends of Jesus that they are.  No different than asking people here on earth to pray for you



No the difference is we ask people to pray FOR us, dear. We don't pray TO those people. Let me ask you this: Whom did the Lord tell us to pray TO?


----------



## Im_Me

baydoll said:


> So do you think the 'Woman' of Revelation 12 is 'literally' Mary? Yes or no?



I think it represents Mary, though I'm not sure that it literally depicts Her Assumption.  

Well, I'm on to work.  You folks have a fun day of discussing.


----------



## Starman3000m

baydoll said:


> Do people in Purgatory hear prayers?



Excellent point baydoll! According to RCC theology, people in purgatory have some kind of awareness and are undergoing some punishment while they are there. I think if that were the case, they'd be praying for their ownself to get things right and have the punishment stop! 



> No the difference is we ask people to pray FOR us, dear. We don't pray TO those people. Let me ask you this: Whom did the Lord tell us to pray TO?



Good points!


----------



## baydoll

Starman3000m said:


> Excellent point baydoll! According to RCC theology, people in purgatory have some kind of awareness and are undergoing some punishment while they are there. I think if that were the case, they'd be praying for their ownself to get things right and have the punishment stop!
> 
> 
> 
> Good points!



Thanks, Starman! Libby's answer to it should be very interesting.


----------



## baydoll

Im_Me said:


> I think it represents Mary, though I'm not sure that it literally depicts Her Assumption.



I'm going to take that as a yes but I am waiting to see what your fellow Catholic (libby) has to say about this before I say anything further. 



> Well, I'm on to work.  You folks have a fun day of discussing



Have a nice day at work! I'll be here when you get back!


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> So let me get this straight: in order to 'arrive' at this 'truth',  one must go  outside of Scripture many many years after the fact to find this 'truth'?
> 
> And if this 'truth' wasn't something 'new', then we should be able to see quite a number of Christians before 300 AD saying something about it, shouldn't we?




My citation of the ECF's was to refute Starman's false witness that it only came about as an idea in 1950.


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> So do you think the 'Woman' of Revelation 12 is 'literally' Mary? Yes or no?



I think I've made that perfectly clear.  Do you think all of the other figures are literal, but the woman is not?  Yes or no.


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> So let me get this straight: in order to 'arrive' at this 'truth',  one must go  outside of Scripture many many years after the fact to find this 'truth'?
> 
> And if this 'truth' wasn't something 'new', then we should be able to see quite a number of Christians before 300 AD saying something about it, shouldn't we?



You're funny.  What source did you use to determine what books belong in Scripture?  None of the books of the Bible tell us what books belong in the Bible, right?  There is no record of Jesus or any Apostles telling us which books belong, so how do you know?  You had to go to something_ outside _of the Bible to "arrive" at the "truth" of what belongs in Scripture.   I repeat... _You have to go outside of Scripture _to see what belongs in Scripture.

Now, my paradigm is consistent.  Yours is not.


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> I'm going to take that as a yes but I am waiting to see what your fellow Catholic (libby) has to say about this before I say anything further.
> 
> 
> 
> Have a nice day at work! I'll be here when you get back!



I'm pretty sure I know where you think you're going to catch me, I'm not worried about it.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> My citation of the ECF's was to refute Starman's false witness that it only came about as an idea in 1950.



Well good for you! Now please answer my question thanks.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> My citation of the ECF's was to refute Starman's false witness that it only came about as an idea in 1950.



Sorry for the misunderstanding, libby, but what I stated is that the RCC did not adopt the "Assumption of Mary" idea until 1950 as made official by Pope Pius XII. 

My question was why did it take 1,950 years for the RCC to finally determine that this would become doctrinal teaching?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> I think I've made that perfectly clear.  Do you think all of the other figures are literal, but the woman is not?  Yes or no.



Which leads me to my next question: 

Do you also believe that Mary was sinless her whole life and in that regards she was also not subjected to the curse of sin like normal women?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> You're funny.  What source did you use to determine what books belong in Scripture?  None of the books of the Bible tell us what books belong in the Bible, right?  There is no record of Jesus or any Apostles telling us which books belong, so how do you know?  You had to go to something_ outside _of the Bible to "arrive" at the "truth" of what belongs in Scripture.   I repeat... _You have to go outside of Scripture _to see what belongs in Scripture.
> 
> Now, my paradigm is consistent.  Yours is not.



No actually you are deflecting MILES AND MILES AWAY from the issue. 

Again, does your Church believe in the Trinity? Yes or no?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> I'm pretty sure I know where you think you're going to catch me, I'm not worried about it.



Well you wanna clue me in because I have no idea.


----------



## baydoll

Starman3000m said:


> Sorry for the misunderstanding, libby, but what I stated is that the RCC did not adopt the "Assumption of Mary" idea until 1950 as made official by Pope Pius XII.
> 
> My question was why did it take 1,950 years for the RCC to finally determine that this would become doctrinal teaching?



That's because supposedly God needed lots and lots of help outside of His Word (and His Apostles) and hundreds and hundreds of years to finally get this 'truth' right in this generation. I pity all those poor souls who believed otherwise before pope pious xii came along and set us all straight on this.


----------



## libby

Baydoll, I'll start answering your questions again when you start answering mine.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Baydoll, I'll start answering your questions again when you start answering mine.




Libby, as I said in the other thread, when debating people of differences of opinions, one does not inject 2 cents of what they believe and then goes careening off into a whole 'nother topic that has nothing whatsoever to do with what is being discussed. Let's follow in a logical/organized manner, shall we?

Thanks! : )


----------



## Starman3000m

baydoll said:


> That's because supposedly God needed lots and lots of help outside of His Word (and His Apostles) and hundreds and hundreds of years to finally get this 'truth' right in this generation. I pity all those poor souls who believed otherwise before pope pious xii came along and set us all straight on this.



So you go along with the Vatican's concept that Catholics *or anyone* who does not adhere to the belief that Mary was "assumed into heaven" will lose (have lost) their salvation???

libby, is it true that if a Catholic rejects the teaching of Mary's Assumption into heaven it will not be forgiven and they would lose their salvation in the church and be bound for hell? 

*In other words,* *there are 2 ways to lose your salvation in RCC Doctrine:*

1.) Failure to believe and accept Jesus as the Divine Son of God & personal Lord and Saviour. (Totally Biblical-no problem)

2.) Failure to believe any of the RCC teachings especially the one of Mary's Assumption into heaven (Totally RCC, unscriptural and heretical)

Hmmm... So faith in Christ as personal Lord and Saviour alone is not enough??? 

From a previous post that you may not have seen:

*Article:* (excerpt)

"The Roman Catholic doctrine of the assumption of Mary teaches that she was assumed body and soul into heaven either without dying or shortly after death. This extraordinary claim was only officially declared to be a dogma of Roman Catholic faith in 1950, though it had been believed by many for hundreds of years. *To dispute this doctrine, according to Rome’s teaching, would result in the loss of salvation.* The official teaching of the Assumption comes from the decree Munificentissimus Deus by pope Pius XII: "
...
"Hence, *if anyone, which God forbid, should dare wilfully to deny or call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith...*It is forbidden to any man to change this, Our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. *If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul"*
(Munificentissimus Deus, Selected Documenst of Pope Pius XII (Washington: National Catholic Welfare Conference), 38, 40, 44-45, 47).

Source: Christian Resources
(bold, mine)

*Conclusion:* The RCC Doctrines contradict Jesus' teaching of (John 14:6)


----------



## itsbob

You Jesusians are funny...

Mines better than yours.. I'm more right than you are.. Nyaah, nyaah nyaah..


----------



## Im_Me

libby said:


> I'm pretty sure I know where you think you're going to catch me, I'm not worried about it.



Lunch time.  I smell Uncle Bill in MPD clothing.  Have a nice day.


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> Libby, as I said in the other thread, when debating people of differences of opinions, one does not inject 2 cents of what they believe and then goes careening off into a whole 'nother topic that has nothing whatsoever to do with what is being discussed. Let's follow in a logical/organized manner, shall we?
> 
> Thanks! : )



Baydoll,  you seem to be the one who cannot defend your position.  You have failed to answer any of the questions I have asked you; you just shoot out more anti-Catholic rhetoric.  Now if that's the way you want to do it, fine, I'll selectively participate in apologetics with you.
We were discussing the Assumption, and how, just like the Trinity, Bible and the Incarnation, the word itself is not found in Scripture, yet we (Catholics) believe in the supernatural realities they describe through faith and reason.
I have given you OT and NT parallels, I have given you early church fathers to refute the "Catholics made it up" claim, and the Scriptural basis for the beliefs.  You're the one who cannot engage in proper apologetics.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Baydoll,  you seem to be the one who cannot defend your position.  You have failed to answer any of the questions I have asked you; you just shoot out more anti-Catholic rhetoric.  Now if that's the way you want to do it, fine, I'll selectively participate in apologetics with you.
> We were discussing the Assumption, and how, just like the Trinity, Bible and the Incarnation, the word itself is not found in Scripture, yet we (Catholics) believe in the supernatural realities they describe through faith and reason.
> I have given you OT and NT parallels, I have given you early church fathers to refute the "Catholics made it up" claim, and the Scriptural basis for the beliefs.  You're the one who cannot engage in proper apologetics.



Hi libby, still waiting for some answers. I'll re-post the info again:

So you go along with the Vatican's concept that Catholics or anyone who does not adhere to the belief that Mary was "assumed into heaven" will lose (have lost) their salvation???

libby, is it true that if a Catholic rejects the teaching of Mary's Assumption into heaven it will not be forgiven and they would lose their salvation in the church and be bound for hell? 

In other words, there are 2 ways to lose your salvation in RCC Doctrine:

1.) Failure to believe and accept Jesus as the Divine Son of God & personal Lord and Saviour. (Totally Biblical-no problem)

2.) Failure to believe any of the RCC teachings especially the one of Mary's Assumption into heaven (Totally RCC, unscriptural and heretical)

Hmmm... So faith in Christ as personal Lord and Saviour alone is not enough??? 

From a previous post that you may not have seen:

Article: (excerpt)

"The Roman Catholic doctrine of the assumption of Mary teaches that she was assumed body and soul into heaven either without dying or shortly after death. This extraordinary claim was only officially declared to be a dogma of Roman Catholic faith in 1950, though it had been believed by many for hundreds of years. *To dispute this doctrine, according to Rome’s teaching, would result in the loss of salvation. *The official teaching of the Assumption comes from the decree Munificentissimus Deus by pope Pius XII: "
...
"Hence, *if anyone, which God forbid, should dare wilfully to deny or call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith*...It is forbidden to any man to change this, Our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. *If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul"*
(Munificentissimus Deus, Selected Documenst of Pope Pius XII (Washington: National Catholic Welfare Conference), 38, 40, 44-45, 47).

Source: Christian Resources
(bold, mine)

*Conclusion:* The RCC Doctrines contradict Jesus' teaching of (John 14:6)


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> Hi libby, still waiting for some answers. I'll re-post the info again:
> 
> So you go along with the Vatican's concept that Catholics or anyone who does not adhere to the belief that Mary was "assumed into heaven" will lose (have lost) their salvation???
> 
> libby, is it true that if a Catholic rejects the teaching of Mary's Assumption into heaven it will not be forgiven and they would lose their salvation in the church and be bound for hell?
> 
> In other words, there are 2 ways to lose your salvation in RCC Doctrine:
> 
> 1.) Failure to believe and accept Jesus as the Divine Son of God & personal Lord and Saviour. (Totally Biblical-no problem)
> 
> 2.) Failure to believe any of the RCC teachings especially the one of Mary's Assumption into heaven (Totally RCC, unscriptural and heretical)
> 
> Hmmm... So faith in Christ as personal Lord and Saviour alone is not enough???
> 
> From a previous post that you may not have seen:
> 
> Article: (excerpt)
> 
> "The Roman Catholic doctrine of the assumption of Mary teaches that she was assumed body and soul into heaven either without dying or shortly after death. This extraordinary claim was only officially declared to be a dogma of Roman Catholic faith in 1950, though it had been believed by many for hundreds of years. *To dispute this doctrine, according to Rome’s teaching, would result in the loss of salvation. *The official teaching of the Assumption comes from the decree Munificentissimus Deus by pope Pius XII: "
> ...
> "Hence, *if anyone, which God forbid, should dare wilfully to deny or call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith*...It is forbidden to any man to change this, Our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. *If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul"*
> (Munificentissimus Deus, Selected Documenst of Pope Pius XII (Washington: National Catholic Welfare Conference), 38, 40, 44-45, 47).
> 
> Source: Christian Resources
> (bold, mine)
> 
> *Conclusion:* The RCC Doctrines contradict Jesus' teaching of (John 14:6)



If someone willfully rejects the Bible as the rule of faith, would you say that their salvation is in jeopardy?
Apples and oranges, you say?  Not so.  I believe the Church is the final authority as Jesus stated in
Lk 10:16
1Tim 3:15
Rom 13: 1-2
Heb. 13:17
Mt 28: 18-20
Eph 3:10
Jn 11: 47-52
Mt. 23:1-3
1 Jn 4:6
Eph. 2 19-20
Mt. 18:15-18
Eph 3::4-6
Acts 15: 30-31

The list goes on.  The NT is filled with examples of the Church exercising heirarchical authority.  

Ask yourself your own question and replace what you call RCC teaching with Bible teaching, and see what your answer is.  The authority I abide by is Scriptural, yours is not.  I've asked Baykat in this thread, and you on other occasions but get no answer.  How do you know the Bible is Biblical?  The idea that it fell from the sky covered and bound will not do for an answer.  If you claim God preserved His Word, I say He preserved His Church.  If you say you trust no man I will call you a liar.  You trust every man who has transcripted, translated and published and sold your Bible to you.  I trust one Divinely instituted office.

"He who listens to you, listens to me.  He who rejects you, rejects me."
"teach them to observe all that I have commanded you."

and so it goes.

So, if someone _willfully and knowingly _rejects the Church and the Fullness of Truth, I would guess that they are putting themselves in as precarious a situation as you would say they are by rejecting the Bible, or any other agreed upon doctrine.
As for actually presuming to know the state of someone's soul and the mitigating circumstances thereof, I can't do that.



> Hmmm... So faith in Christ as personal Lord and Saviour alone is not enough???


No, it is not enough.  We must_ do _as we have been commanded.


----------



## ItalianScallion

libby said:


> Do you have a loved one who has died?  I talk to my own father often, wishing I knew if he was happy with the way I'm teaching his grandchildren.
> I believe people in Heaven are more alive that people on earth.  We are the ones still facing the challenge, whereas they have already been rewarded.


Both my parents have died. Dad in 2002, Mom in 2007. I've only been to their graves twice and that's because I was there for other funerals and I thought I'd make sure their head stone was clean. I did NOT pray to them or for them. I did NOT get on my knees and tell them to tell God anything.
I KNOW that they're with God because the Bible tells us that we can KNOW that we're saved; not hope that they are and grieve like some misled Catholics do. Anyone that goes to a grave of their loved ones should not grieve if they were saved when they died. Remember the good times and the good memories; that's what I do often. 
And I don't care what you've been taught but here's the bottom line, like it or not: We will be judged by the words in the Bible and NOTHING else! All other documents will not even be considered, so who cares what ANY denominational church says???
P.S. None of the dead have received their rewards yet. They won't until Jesus returns (Revelation 22 v 12). 


libby said:


> Yeah, IT.  The baby is literal, the dragon is literal, but the woman is not.  We see where you get your context.


Nope! The baby is Jesus, the woman is the Messianic Jews and the dragon is the devil...it tells us that in verse 9. See how easy it is? 


libby said:


> What source did you use to determine what books belong in Scripture?  None of the books of the Bible tell us what books belong in the Bible, right?  There is no record of Jesus or any Apostles telling us which books belong, so how do you know?  You had to go to something_ outside _of the Bible to "arrive" at the "truth" of what belongs in Scripture.   I repeat... _You have to go outside of Scripture _to see what belongs in Scripture.


There is a standard that determines which books are qualified to be part of the Bible and which ones are not Libby: 
1) Does the book in question agree with God’s message found in ALL the  
    other books? The Apocryphal books do not.
2) Were the writers really men of God?
3) The present O.T. books were written about God, so many of them were 
    automatically considered inspired. The N.T. books were written mostly by 
    Apostles or close associates of Jesus, so they were also considered 
    inspired. *Their authority was NOT determined by the   
    authority of the compilers of the Bible but by the testimony of the writing 
    itself.* 



Im_Me said:


> Lunch time.  I smell Uncle Bill in MPD clothing.  Have a nice day.


Hey doll baby! I know you love me but there's only one of me....


----------



## libby

ItalianScallion said:


> Both my parents have died. Dad in 2002, Mom in 2007. I've only been to their graves twice and that's because I was there for other funerals and I thought I'd make sure their head stone was clean. I did NOT pray to them or for them. I did NOT get on my knees and tell them to tell God anything.
> I KNOW that they're with God because the Bible tells us that we can KNOW that we're saved; not hope that they are and grieve like some misled Catholics do. Anyone that goes to a grave of their loved ones should not grieve if they were saved when they died. Remember the good times and the good memories; that's what I do often.
> And I don't care what you've been taught but here's the bottom line, like it or not: We will be judged by the words in the Bible and NOTHING else! All other documents will not even be considered, so who cares what ANY denominational church says???
> P.S. None of the dead have received their rewards yet. They won't until Jesus returns (Revelation 22 v 12).
> 
> Nope! The baby is Jesus, the woman is the Messianic Jews and the dragon is the devil...it tells us that in verse 9. See how easy it is?
> 
> There is a standard that determines which books are qualified to be part of the Bible and which ones are not Libby:
> 1) Does the book in question agree with God’s message found in ALL the
> other books? The Apocryphal books do not.
> 2) Were the writers really men of God?
> 3) The present O.T. books were written about God, so many of them were
> automatically considered inspired. The N.T. books were written mostly by
> Apostles or close associates of Jesus, so they were also considered
> inspired. *Their authority was NOT determined by the
> authority of the compilers of the Bible but by the testimony of the writing
> itself.*
> 
> 
> Hey doll baby! I know you love me but there's only one of me....



So then, who wrote the letter to the Hebrews?  I even went to a cite your friend Baykat; guess what I found...

Who wrote the Book of Hebrews? Who was the author of Hebrews?

And lookey lookey at paragraph 4, "church tradition teaches that Paul" was the author; but now that is in dispute with some.

So this book is not written by an Apostle or a close companion.  So _who _do you trust??

So your choices are that you have trusted, and indeed still trust, church _tradition_ to tell you that Paul is the author, thereby assuring the veracity of the book.  OR, now that Scripture scholars have determined Paul is not likely the author, you will have to come up with some other baloney to explain why you accept this book.


----------



## hotcoffee

So we're discussing the praying to the mother of Jesus right?


----------



## libby

libby said:


> So then, who wrote the letter to the Hebrews?  I even went to a cite your friend Baykat; guess what I found...
> 
> Who wrote the Book of Hebrews? Who was the author of Hebrews?
> 
> And lookey lookey at paragraph 4, "church tradition teaches that Paul" was the author; but now that is in dispute with some.
> 
> So this book is not written by an Apostle or a close companion.  So _who _do you trust??
> 
> So your choices are that you have trusted, and indeed still trust, church _tradition_ to tell you that Paul is the author, thereby assuring the veracity of the book.  OR, now that Scripture scholars have determined Paul is not likely the author, you will have to come up with some other baloney to explain why you accept this book.



I forgot to link to the article

Who wrote the Book of Hebrews? Who was the author of Hebrews?


----------



## libby

hotcoffee said:


> So we're discussing the praying to the mother of Jesus right?



We were.  I'm pretty sure I've answered all that you asked.  We segued off a bit.


----------



## ItalianScallion

libby said:


> So then, who wrote the letter to the Hebrews?  I even went to a cite your friend Baykat; guess what I found...
> 
> And lookey lookey at paragraph 4, "church tradition teaches that Paul" was the author; but now that is in dispute with some.
> 
> So this book is not written by an Apostle or a close companion.  So _who _do you trust??
> 
> So your choices are that you have trusted, and indeed still trust, church _tradition_ to tell you that Paul is the author, thereby assuring the veracity of the book.  OR, now that Scripture scholars have determined Paul is not likely the author, you will have to come up with some other baloney to explain why you accept this book.


They don't know who wrote the book but they know Paul didn't. It's not his writing style. Look at all of Paul's writings and they all start out the same; Hebrews doesn't start out that way. The system works in spite of that. 
Read #3, in red. Whether it goes into the Bible is determined by what it says not who wrote it in the case of Hebrews. 
Possible candidates were Barnabas or Apollos but they're not sure because the writer does not identify himself. All they know is that, by the masculine form of the Greek verb ("to tell") in chapter 11 v 32, it was a man. 
In case 1, the writing DOES agree with the other books.
In case 2, they don't know the author so they go to #3
In case 3, the words are in agreement.


----------



## itsbob




----------



## Starman3000m

itsbob said:


> You Jesusians are funny...
> 
> Mines better than yours.. I'm more right than you are.. Nyaah, nyaah nyaah..



There is Only One True Jesus, itsbob, and every theological claim of "another Jesus" other than the New Testament Son of God are all counterfeit.

The Real Jesus of The New Testament gave His Life as a Blood Sacrifice to allow God's Forgiveness upon those who trust in Him through faith in the here and now. Salvation is assured and sealed by the Holy Spirit of God.

The Real Jesus does not grant you Salvation in the here and now and then punish you in a half-way journey to heaven called "purgatory" before being allowed to enter heaven.

The Only True Jesus makes good on His Promises:

*Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.* (John 14:6)

*Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.* Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. (Matthew 11:28-30)

...I am the door of the sheep.
All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
*I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.*
The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
(John 10:7-11)

*Behold, I stand at the door, and knock:* if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. (Revelation 3:20)

*For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;* (1 Timothy 2:5)


----------



## PsyOps

itsbob said:


> You Jesusians are funny...
> 
> Mines better than yours.. I'm more right than you are.. Nyaah, nyaah nyaah..



Bob you are absolutely right.  The Christian faith is plagued with division and dissention.  I believe this is healthy to some degree.  But it ends up being more of a distraction to Christians and would-be Christians and their desire to focus on their salvation and their savior.  It also serves as fodder for non-believer to point their finger at us and say “see, Christians can’t even get along in a manner that Christ demand we do”.


----------



## PsyOps

baydoll said:


> Okay I just read that whole chapter and darned if I can see the concept of Mary's 'Assumption' in it---perhaps you could narrow it down a little further or point it out to me please?
> 
> Thanks!



I’m not really sure of this term “assumed” that Libby uses except that I guess it means she was saved as any person that believes in Christ would be saved.  Ephesians 2 talks about how we are saved, not by what we do, but by God’s mercy and grace; that is afforded to us through Christ.  Romans 3:23 states “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”.  This includes Mary.  Mary, when she visited Elizabeth, called God her Savior (Luke 1:47), meaning that she also needed salvation.  It was not by some automatic transformation that she went to heaven.  It was through the graces and mercy of God, through Christ, that she went to heaven.

Certainly Mary was blessed because of the unique blessing God gave her.  But this does not put her on the same spititual status as Jesus.  But there is no doubt as to her salvation.  But that salvation is still obtain in the same manner as ours: through Christ.  Certainly Jesus did not place Mary in any sort of higher place than any other believer:



> Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him.  A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.  "Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked.  Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers!  Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother." (Mark 3:31-35)


----------



## hotcoffee

libby said:


> We were.  I'm pretty sure I've answered all that you asked.  We segued off a bit.



OK... so here's what happened.... I was at lunch and I had my NIV thumper with study notes .... it's chock full of notes and papers and bulletins.... they are marking pages etc.... you know the kind.... Anyway... I was glancing through it and trying to figure out why each page was marked and I came across this....

Luke 11:27  "As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you."
 28:  He replaied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it."


So I guess that begs an interpretation...


----------



## Alexa

PsyOps said:


> Bob you are absolutely right.  The Christian faith is plagued with division and dissention.  I believe this is healthy to some degree.  But it ends up being more of a distraction to Christians and would-be Christians and their desire to focus on their salvation and their savior.  It also serves as fodder for non-believer to point their finger at us and say “see, Christians can’t even get along in a manner that Christ demand we do”.



If you stand in the shoes of a non-christian looking in or someone that is trying to come to the true faith, the division and dissension either drives them away or makes them very weary. This has been my greatest struggle with the faith.  The scriptures aren't suppose to cause division and dissension and yet.....

Can anyone be surprised at these reactions?


----------



## libby

hotcoffee said:


> OK... so here's what happened.... I was at lunch and I had my NIV thumper with study notes .... it's chock full of notes and papers and bulletins.... they are marking pages etc.... you know the kind.... Anyway... I was glancing through it and trying to figure out why each page was marked and I came across this....
> 
> Luke 11:27  "As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you."
> 28:  He replaied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it."
> 
> 
> So I guess that begs an interpretation...



He was not dissing His mother, that would be breaking the commandment which says, "Honor thy mother and father".  So that's out of the question. I think it's that He was raising up the rest of us.  Mary is not blessed because she nursed Him, she is blessed because she said "yes" to the Will of God.
Mary did both, obeyed God and nursed His Son.


----------



## libby

Alexa said:


> If you stand in the shoes of a non-christian looking in or someone that is trying to come to the true faith, the division and dissension either drives them away or makes them very weary. This has been my greatest struggle with the faith.  The scriptures aren't suppose to cause division and dissension and yet.....
> 
> Can anyone be surprised at these reactions?



You and Psy are right that this is wearisome, and I participate!  I just cannot bear those who want to lie about what the Catholic Church teaches.  I'm not here to convert anyone; in fact, I usually only get involved in threads when the Church is maligned.
If someone understands Catholicism and doesn't believe it for whatever reason, that's fine with me.


----------



## PsyOps

Alexa said:


> If you stand in the shoes of a non-christian looking in or someone that is trying to come to the true faith, the division and dissension either drives them away or makes them very weary. This has been my greatest struggle with the faith.  The scriptures aren't suppose to cause division and dissension and yet.....
> 
> Can anyone be surprised at these reactions?



In reality I feel it has made my faith stronger.  Maybe because I feel like I learned early on that all these things are what God said would happen.  Not to look to man for what we need from God, but look to God.  Nothing we do as humans changes who God is.  In reality it only proves more of who He is by our ever-growing sinful nature.  It really is summed up in this passage:



> Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.  For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' (Mathew 10:35-36)



We certain have lived up to this.


----------



## Im_Me

libby said:


> He was not dissing His mother, that would be breaking the commandment which says, "Honor thy mother and father".  So that's out of the question. I think it's that He was raising up the rest of us.  Mary is not blessed because she nursed Him, she is blessed because she said "yes" to the Will of God.
> Mary did both, obeyed God and nursed His Son.



Here...Here....Libby, Good point!

I came back to support you, girl, when I saw you were getting ganged up on, but I'm not in to the whole I'm right and you're Damned thing.  

I looked up the price for a private forum for people of all faiths to discuss religion in a respectful manner...It's not much.  I could spring for the first year and you could pick up the next (or not, whatever).  What do you think?

The challenging people would run all over this place, but we'd have a place to learn and share.


----------



## Starman3000m

PsyOps said:


> In reality I feel it has made my faith stronger.  Maybe because I feel like I learned early on that all these things are what God said would happen.  Not to look to man for what we need from God, but look to God.  Nothing we do as humans changes who God is.  In reality it only proves more of who He is by our ever-growing sinful nature.  It really is summed up in this passage:
> 
> 
> 
> We certain have lived up to this.



And it will continue until Christ returns:

*Luke 12:*

49: I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
50: But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
51: *Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:*
52: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
53: The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.


----------



## ItalianScallion

PsyOps said:


> Bob you are absolutely right.  The Christian faith is plagued with division and dissention.  I believe this is healthy to some degree.  But it ends up being more of a distraction to Christians and would-be Christians and their desire to focus on their salvation and their savior.  It also serves as fodder for non-believer to point their finger at us and say “see, Christians can’t even get along in a manner that Christ demand we do”.


Did you ever think someone might be reading the posts and learning something and NOT worrying about whether we're arguing or debating? A lot of good teachings have come out of these posts and a lot of bad teachings have been refuted here...
And don't you realize that people already think this because of the churches? 


Alexa said:


> If you stand in the shoes of a non-christian looking in or someone that is trying to come to the true faith, the division and dissension either drives them away or makes them very weary. This has been my greatest struggle with the faith.  The scriptures aren't suppose to cause division and dissension and yet.


Great! Another one. Let me take your crutch out from under you Alexa. No one is going to miss out on salvation because of bickering Christians. You're just another one of the "blame someone else" generation. Never taking responsibility for your own life. If someone tries to use this excuse, they were NEVER interested in the Christian lifestyle in the first place. You're waiting to hear it how you want it, on your terms. 
This is how it is here sometimes (not always). Jesus said the world will HATE you because it hated me first. You're the ONLY one responsible for your salvation and no one can keep you from it if it's meant to be. It's a war out here and God said it would be. 
The last thing Christianity needs is it's own becoming like Oprah and accepting everyone's beliefs about it. We will differ and we will argue over the differences. 
Was everyone in agreement with what Jesus said? 
Did He NEVER publicly argue with people and tell them they were Hell bound? Do you think the public NEVER heard Jesus and the Jews arguing with each other much of the time??? If so, then I'll become a creme puff. 
If you can't stand the banter, pull up another site with roses and puffy clouds on it.


----------



## Im_Me

*Temporarily on un-ignore*



ItalianScallion said:


> Nope! The baby is Jesus, the woman is the Messianic Jews and the dragon is the devil...it tells us that in verse 9. See how easy it is?
> 
> Revelations 12:9?  "The huge dragon, the ancient serpent ,who is called the Devil and Satan, who decieved the whole world, was thrown down to earth, and his angels were thrown down with it. "
> 
> Where does that say the woman was the Jews?
> 
> Hey doll baby! I know you love me but there's only one of me....




O.K.  Maybe it was my Uncle Bill on my Mother's side that I smelled.  He was an equally unappealing person.  

p.s.  I left some sloppiness in my post about atonement to bait you (I was going from memmory on the passage about the two sons and when I looked it up for the reference info, it wasn't exactly as I remembered.  I think it still made my point.  Unfortunately I'm not a master at it like you are.  I'm only a journeyman baiter.


----------



## libby

Im_Me said:


> Here...Here....Libby, Good point!
> 
> I came back to support you, girl, when I saw you were getting ganged up on, but I'm not in to the whole I'm right and you're Damned thing.
> 
> I looked up the price for a private forum for people of all faiths to discuss religion in a respectful manner...It's not much.  I could spring for the first year and you could pick up the next (or not, whatever).  What do you think?
> 
> The challenging people would run all over this place, but we'd have a place to learn and share.



The idea certainly intrigues me.  Unfortunately, I think I already spend more time than I should on this forum when I should be reading "Dr. Suess' ABC's" to my 3 and 1 y/o. 

I do appreciate the help around here!  I just cannot let this stuff slide, not for those who are volleying back and forth, but for anyone else who might be reading.  
Really glad you're here.  I'll be absent tomorrow as I'm headed to a graduation for the weekend.  I wonder how many pages I'll have to catch up on when I get back.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Im_Me said:


> O.K.  Maybe it was my Uncle Bill on my Mother's side.  He was an equally unappealing person.
> 
> p.s.  I left some sloppiness in my post about atonement to bait you (I was going from memmory on the passage about the two sons and when I looked it up for the reference info, it wasn't exactly as I remembered.  I think it still made my point.  Unfortunately I'm not a master at the art of baiting like you are.  I'm only a journeyman baiter.


You need to meet me in person before I can appeal to you.
"journeyman baiter"? Oh puleezee! That joke is older than me.
Nice to see that my personality brought you back here. (Just 4 U)


----------



## Im_Me

ItalianScallion said:


> You need to meet me in person before I can appeal to you.
> "journeyman baiter"? Oh puleezee! That joke is older than me.
> Nice to see that my personality brought you back here. (Just 4 U)



Yeah..Just like watching a train wreck...You can't pull your eyes away.


----------



## Im_Me

libby said:


> The idea certainly intrigues me.  Unfortunately, I think I already spend more time than I should on this forum when I should be reading "Dr. Suess' ABC's" to my 3 and 1 y/o.
> 
> I do appreciate the help around here!  I just cannot let this stuff slide, not for those who are volleying back and forth, but for anyone else who might be reading.
> Really glad you're here.  I'll be absent tomorrow as I'm headed to a graduation for the weekend.  I wonder how many pages I'll have to catch up on when I get back.



Ignore it.  It is a distraction from your real work of growing closer to God and raising your kids.


----------



## Im_Me

Im_Me said:


> Yeah..Just like watching a train wreck...You can't pull your eyes away.



P.S.  Answer the question about the woman.


----------



## ItalianScallion

ItalianScallion said:


> The woman spoken of in Rev 12 is SYMBOLIC of the Messianic (Jewish Converts to Christianity) Community. IT HAS NADA TO DO WITH MARY!
> It shows that Christ would come from the Jewish line.





Im_Me said:


> P.S.  Answer the question about the woman.


I thought I did? (See my own quote) Did I miss one?


Im_Me said:


> Yeah..Just like watching a train wreck...You can't pull your eyes away.


Yeah baby! I've caused a few hearts to train wreck...


----------



## Im_Me

ItalianScallion said:


> I thought I did? (See my own quote) Did I miss one?
> 
> Yeah baby! I've caused a few hearts to train wreck...



Oh Barf!

Where does it say the woman is the Jews?


----------



## ItalianScallion

Im_Me said:


> Oh Barf!
> Where does it say the woman is the Jews?


Yeah ok, barf...right. I see you smiling! Ok enough PR.

That it's speaking about the Jews is inferred by the context of the surrounding verses. This is essentially how the Bible works. 
vs 1 - clothed with the sun; usually a reference to God's righteousness, so it's about believers but not Mary in this case.  Twelve stars - the 12 tribes of Israel.

vs 2 - pregnant, about to give birth; speaking about the rebirth of Israel in (Isaiah 66 v 7), plus, Christ came from the Jewish line of the tribe of Judah.

vs 5 - referring to Christ and His Ascension. 

vs 6 - the woman (The Jews) was led to the desert as Israel was in the OT (Hosea 2 v 14) and (Micah 4 v 10). 
1260 days (42 months) symbolizes a time of protection or punishment as spoken of by Daniel. He spoke a lot about the coming Judgment of Israel. 

Much of Revelation has to do with God's salvation and judgment of Israel. Most of the OT is about the same thing. It is not only about the end of the world.  
I know you hate what I do here MeMe but, seriously, you should really invest in a "study Bible". It will help you immensely with good explanations of the verses but you must not get a biased version (denominational one). I highly recommend the NIV Study Bible. 
In fact, if you want I'd be happy to get you one and give it to you in a public place. (So you won't burn my house down when you see where I live). I've gotten hundreds of them for other people and they love them.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Im_Me said:


> P.S.  Answer the question about the woman.


You edited this post didn't you? And added a smiley!  
From ignore to bliss and all in one night! 
Now I know you love me...


----------



## Alexa

ItalianScallion said:


> Did you ever think someone might be reading the posts and learning something and NOT worrying about whether we're arguing or debating? A lot of good teachings have come out of these posts and a lot of bad teachings have been refuted here...
> And don't you realize that people already think this because of the churches?
> 
> Great! Another one. Let me take your crutch out from under you Alexa. No one is going to miss out on salvation because of bickering Christians. You're just another one of the "blame someone else" generation. Never taking responsibility for your own life. If someone tries to use this excuse, they were NEVER interested in the Christian lifestyle in the first place. You're waiting to hear it how you want it, on your terms.
> This is how it is here sometimes (not always). Jesus said the world will HATE you because it hated me first. You're the ONLY one responsible for your salvation and no one can keep you from it if it's meant to be. It's a war out here and God said it would be.
> The last thing Christianity needs is it's own becoming like Oprah and accepting everyone's beliefs about it. We will differ and we will argue over the differences.
> Was everyone in agreement with what Jesus said?
> Did He NEVER publicly argue with people and tell them they were Hell bound? Do you think the public NEVER heard Jesus and the Jews arguing with each other much of the time??? If so, then I'll become a creme puff.
> If you can't stand the banter, pull up another site with roses and puffy clouds on it.



Well, Gee,  Thank you so much for proving my point. 

I don't believe anyone denounces good friendly discussions.  I love it when differing ideas and interpretations are mulled in bible studies. I revel in it and most of the time, I come out of it having learned something.

However, one would be a fool to think that some of the arguing and dissension that occurs does not get down and ugly.

There is always that the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing among us.  You know the one with the great following that doesn't practice what he preaches and lets not even pretend atrocities haven't been made in the name of the Lord. None of that goes away, ever.  The Religious Con man is alive and well.  It gets more and more difficult to route him out as he evolves and becomes more sophisticated with the times too.  

I don't need a crutch.  I don't go around following blindly no matter what the mob mentality tries to cram down my throat and call it the Word.  I have enough confidence in my faith to question at every turn.  I have not lost anything yet.

It is, however, getting more and more difficult to try and make some kind of connection with people anymore without having someone turn into a rabid dog. It is a great turn off for a non believer to connect or someone just trying to gain a footing in the faith.

There is a difference and that was what I was referring to.


----------



## hotcoffee

libby said:


> He was not dissing His mother, that would be breaking the commandment which says, "Honor thy mother and father".  So that's out of the question. I think it's that He was raising up the rest of us.  Mary is not blessed because she nursed Him, she is blessed because she said "yes" to the Will of God.
> Mary did both, obeyed God and nursed His Son.



OK...  I've seen this happen a lot over the years.... the interpretation of *one verse *can go down *several paths...*  I learned that this is the Spirit guiding us... well it's the Spirit if you are in prayer during these discussions....anyway....

When I saw this verse I was thinking.... Jesus knows the future... He knows that the catholic church will want to put Mary on the list of people to pray to... and that will be yet another thing to cause dissent.... 

I believe that Jesus knows the past, present, and future of everything...

Anyway.... I feel that He is saying here....  It's more important to follow His teachings.... 

*Jesus said the only way to get to Heaven was through Him.... *

I think what He's saying here is "Look it's the Son, not the Mother!"  Why would you spend you time idolizing the mother?

*I'm sure Mary would agree that He is the Messiah.... He went to the Cross for our sins... He should get all the praise and glory....*




Im_Me said:


> Here...Here....Libby, Good point!
> 
> I came back to support you, girl, when I saw you were getting ganged up on, but I'm not in to the whole I'm right and you're Damned thing.
> 
> I looked up the price for a private forum for people of all faiths to discuss religion in a respectful manner...It's not much.  I could spring for the first year and you could pick up the next (or not, whatever).  What do you think?
> 
> The challenging people would run all over this place, but we'd have a place to learn and share.



Instead of discussing religion in private... why not have a Bible study in public... that's what I'm finding here... 

There always going to be someone without a thumper ... that's what non-believers do...  they make things interesting sometimes....


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Baydoll,  you seem to be the one who cannot defend your position.  You have failed to answer any of the questions I have asked you; you just shoot out more anti-Catholic rhetoric.  Now if that's the way you want to do it, fine, I'll selectively participate in apologetics with you.
> We were discussing the Assumption, and how, just like the Trinity, Bible and the Incarnation, the word itself is not found in Scripture, yet we (Catholics) believe in the supernatural realities they describe through faith and reason.
> I have given you OT and NT parallels, I have given you early church fathers to refute the "Catholics made it up" claim, and the Scriptural basis for the beliefs.  You're the one who cannot engage in proper apologetics.



Okey-dokey. I see the Catholics will do anything but honestly and thoughtfully discuss the topic of who the Woman of Revelation 12 is and  want to derail this topic into a ditch....

Libby (or the other Catholic girl) we are discussing who the Woman is in Revelation 12, are we not? You say (and I am guessing the other Catholic girl agrees with you on this) that this 'Woman' is Mary...your Church also agrees with this. Well what I wanna know is this:

Is 'she' really Mary or not? 

Why are you so afraid to explore this topic with me? Why are you getting so defensive?


----------



## baydoll

PsyOps said:


> I’m not really sure of this term “assumed” that Libby uses except that I guess it means she was saved as any person that believes in Christ would be saved.  Ephesians 2 talks about how we are saved, not by what we do, but by God’s mercy and grace; that is afforded to us through Christ.  Romans 3:23 states “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”.  This includes Mary.  Mary, when she visited Elizabeth, called God her Savior (Luke 1:47), meaning that she also needed salvation.  It was not by some automatic transformation that she went to heaven.  It was through the graces and mercy of God, through Christ, that she went to heaven.
> 
> Certainly Mary was blessed because of the unique blessing God gave her.  But this does not put her on the same spititual status as Jesus.  But there is no doubt as to her salvation.  But that salvation is still obtain in the same manner as ours: through Christ.  Certainly Jesus did not place Mary in any sort of higher place than any other believer:



And I wholeheartedly agree with you. But this is not what Libby means by 'assumed'. She believes (and the Catholic Church teaches) that Mary was taken up into Heaven like Elijah and Enoch was. There is no teaching of this in Scripture whatsoever. No one taught it in the Early Church (and by Early I mean during the New Testament times). Jesus never taught it nor did any of His Apostles. It is a teaching that came along many MANY years in the future.  Here is a great link that explains it better than I can:

What is the Assumption of Mary?


----------



## baydoll

Im_Me said:


> Lunch time.  I smell Uncle Bill in MPD clothing. .



Do you like being a false witness, dear?




> Have a nice day!



Why thanks!! You do the same! : )


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> He was not dissing His mother, that would be breaking the commandment which says, "Honor thy mother and father".  So that's out of the question. I think it's that He was raising up the rest of us.  Mary is not blessed because she nursed Him, she is blessed because she said "yes" to the Will of God.
> Mary did both, obeyed God and nursed His Son.



What does that have to do with praying to her?


----------



## baydoll

Im_Me said:


> Here...Here....Libby, Good point!
> 
> I came back to support you, girl, when I saw you were getting ganged up on, but I'm not in to the whole I'm right and you're Damned thing.
> 
> I looked up the price for a private forum for people of all faiths to discuss religion in a respectful manner...It's not much.  I could spring for the first year and you could pick up the next (or not, whatever).  What do you think?
> 
> The challenging people would run all over this place, but we'd have a place to learn and share.



I agree....so would you and Libby like to share with us Non-Catholics your Church's belief in the subject of the Woman in Revelation 12 and other such things without getting all defensive and going off on hissy fits?

Thanks!!


----------



## baydoll

Im_Me said:


> P.S.  Answer the question about the woman.




Oh try me, Im-Me! I would LOVE to discuss it with you!   Please repost that question about the woman for me so we can discuss it further thanks! 

I am looking forward to a nice, thoughtful, kind, intelligent and most of all GROWN UP debate/discussion of this with you, dear. I know you are capable of doing so without resorting to the usual Drama Queen and defensive hissy fits Catholics usually throw when discussing anything of their teachings and beliefs. Thanks, Hon!


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> No, it is not enough.  We must_ do _as we have been commanded.




And those would be...?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> So then, who wrote the letter to the Hebrews?  I even went to a cite your friend Baykat; guess what I found...
> 
> Who wrote the Book of Hebrews? Who was the author of Hebrews?
> 
> And lookey lookey at paragraph 4, "church tradition teaches that Paul" was the author; but now that is in dispute with some.
> 
> So this book is not written by an Apostle or a close companion.  So _who _do you trust??
> 
> So your choices are that you have trusted, and indeed still trust, church _tradition_ to tell you that Paul is the author, thereby assuring the veracity of the book.  OR, now that Scripture scholars have determined Paul is not likely the author, you will have to come up with some other baloney to explain why you accept this book.




Maybe because I trust in God perhaps? Or is that too much 'baloney' for you? 

Enquiring minds wanna know.


----------



## camily

baydoll said:


> Maybe because I trust in God perhaps? Or is that too much 'baloney' for you?
> 
> Enquiring minds wanna know.



Exactly, God wrote the Bible. The Holy Spirit filled the men and and worked through them to write the Bible. The Bible is complete as God wanted it to be.


----------



## baydoll

camily said:


> Exactly, God wrote the Bible. The Holy Spirit filled the men and and worked through them to write the Bible. The Bible is complete as God wanted it to be.




Amen! 

(Another Jonathan fan I see!! )


----------



## camily

baydoll said:


> Amen!
> 
> (Another Jonathan fan I see!! )



Yes, I am DEFINITELY a fan.


----------



## baydoll

camily said:


> Yes, I am DEFINITELY a fan.



And here I thought I was the only one, lol!


----------



## Im_Me

baydoll said:


> Oh try me, Im-Me! I would LOVE to discuss it with you!   Please repost that question about the woman for me so we can discuss it further thanks!
> 
> I am looking forward to a nice, thoughtful, kind, intelligent and most of all GROWN UP debate/discussion of this with you, dear. I know you are capable of doing so without resorting to the usual Drama Queen and defensive hissy fits Catholics usually throw when discussing anything of their teachings and beliefs. Thanks, Hon!



Between calling me a false witness in another post and your tone here, I don't care to discuss this with you.  But OK , whatever.

My question was the one I asked IT to answer and he has: who do you think the woman is and why?...If you have a different interpretation than his I'll be around to hear it.  As I get the chance I research and reflect on alternate hyptheses and then I'll reply.


----------



## baydoll

Im_Me said:


> Between calling me a false witness in another post and your tone here, I don't care to discuss this with you.  But OK , whatever.
> 
> .



Did you not say I was an 'Uncle Bill'?


----------



## baydoll

Im_Me said:


> My question was the one I asked IT to answer and he has: who do you think the woman is and why?...If you have a different interpretation than his I'll be around to hear it.  As I get the chance I research and reflect on alternate hyptheses and then I'll reply.



I say that woman cannot be Mary. Would you like to hear my reason why?


----------



## Im_Me

baydoll said:


> Did you not say I was an 'Uncle Bill'?



Sorry.  Ok I was mistaken.. Your tone started sounding like his.  

P.S.  Uncle Bill refers to my real uncle on my father's side.  He was a cranky "old" man that always made for an edgy family reunion.  It's not intended to be a heavy insult.  Deep down we did love him, but not a lot.


----------



## Im_Me

baydoll said:


> I say that woman cannot be Mary. Would you like to hear my reason why?



Sure...OK.


----------



## baydoll

Im_Me said:


> Sorry.  Ok I was mistaken.. Your tone started sounding like his.
> 
> P.S.  Uncle Bill refers to my real uncle on my father's side.  He was a cranky "old" man that always made for an edgy family reunion.  It's not intended to be a heavy insult.  Deep down we did love him, but not a lot.




That's nice. 

You wanna answer my last post to you now?


----------



## baydoll

Im_Me said:


> Sure...OK.



Do you agree with your Church that Mary was sinless her whole life or not?


----------



## camily

*Micah 4:9*

    9"Now, why do you (A)cry out loudly?
         Is there no king among you,
         Or has your (B)counselor perished,
         That agony has gripped you like a woman in childbirth? 


Cross references:
Micah 4:9 : Jer 8:19 
Micah 4:9 : Is 3:1-3 


*Micah 4:10*


10"(A)Writhe and labor to give birth,
         Daughter of Zion,
         Like a woman in childbirth;
         For now you will (B)go out of the city,
         Dwell in the field,
         And go to Babylon 
         (C)There you will be rescued;
         (D)There the LORD will redeem you
         From the hand of your enemies. 


Cross references:
Micah 4:10 : Mic 5:3 
Micah 4:10 : 2 Kin 20:18; Hos 2:14 
Micah 4:10 : Is 43:14; 45:13; Mic 7:8-12 
Micah 4:10 : Is 48:20; 52:9-12


----------



## baydoll

camily said:


> *Micah 4:9*
> 
> 9"Now, why do you (A)cry out loudly?
> Is there no king among you,
> Or has your (B)counselor perished,
> That agony has gripped you like a woman in childbirth?
> 
> 
> Cross references:
> Micah 4:9 : Jer 8:19
> Micah 4:9 : Is 3:1-3
> 
> 
> *Micah 4:10*
> 
> 
> 10"(A)Writhe and labor to give birth,
> Daughter of Zion,
> Like a woman in childbirth;
> For now you will (B)go out of the city,
> Dwell in the field,
> And go to Babylon
> (C)There you will be rescued;
> (D)There the LORD will redeem you
> From the hand of your enemies.
> 
> 
> Cross references:
> Micah 4:10 : Mic 5:3
> Micah 4:10 : 2 Kin 20:18; Hos 2:14
> Micah 4:10 : Is 43:14; 45:13; Mic 7:8-12
> Micah 4:10 : Is 48:20; 52:9-12



Exactly. Right on the money!!  

Now let's see if libby and the other Catholic girl will follow this bouncing ball to its conclusion or let it drop before it goes further.


----------



## Im_Me

baydoll said:


> Do you agree with your Church that Mary was sinless her whole life or not?



Quite honestly my dear I don't think about it enough to comment.  

Catholic though I may be, I practice Christianity.  If you want to tell me what you think... Go ahead.  Don't try to trap me by asking me pointed questions to make you point.  Just make it.  I promise not to call you names, or downgrade you whether I agree with it or not...I will research and comment when and if I can.  

If you want to make the point that you know more about the Bible than I do..I'll concede already and we can get on with our lives.  

So please go on... Tell me who the woman is...


----------



## camily

baydoll said:


> Do you agree with your Church that Mary was sinless her whole life or not?



(Rom 3:23 KJV) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 

(1 Ki 8:46 KJV) If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near; 

(Rom 3:10-20 KJV) As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: {11} There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. {12} They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. {13} Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: {14} Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: {15} Their feet are swift to shed blood: {16} Destruction and misery are in their ways: {17} And the way of peace have they not known: {18} There is no fear of God before their eyes. {19} Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. {20} Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 

(Gal 3:22 KJV) But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 

Mary Needed A Savior! 
(Luke 1:47 KJV) And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. 

Those in the Roman Catholic Church teach that Mary is a mediator between Jesus and us. This teaching is erroneous because the Bible teaches that Jesus is the ONLY mediator between God and man. The Bible does not teach anywhere that the redeemed of God in Heaven have any intercessory authority or ministry for those still remaining on earth. 
  (1 Tim 2:5 KJV) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 

Was Mary Sinless?


----------



## baydoll

Im_Me said:


> Quite honestly my dear I don't think about it enough to comment.
> 
> Catholic though I may be, I practice Christianity.  If you want to tell me what you think... Go ahead.  Don't try to trap me by asking me pointed questions to make you point.  Just make it.  I promise not to call you names, or downgrade you whether I agree with it or not...I will research and comment when and if I can.
> 
> If you want to make the point that you know more about the Bible than I do..I'll concede already and we can get on with our lives.
> 
> So please go on... Tell me who the woman is...



Well your Church states explicitly that Woman of Revelation 12 is Mary. This is a fact. Whether you believe it or not doesn't negate that fact. I am not debating what YOU believe but rather what your Church teaches. Is it true or is it false?   

Camily made an excellent point regarding this....see if you can figure out what it is.


----------



## baydoll

camily said:


> (Rom 3:23 KJV) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
> 
> (1 Ki 8:46 KJV) If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;
> 
> (Rom 3:10-20 KJV) As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: {11} There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. {12} They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. {13} Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: {14} Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: {15} Their feet are swift to shed blood: {16} Destruction and misery are in their ways: {17} And the way of peace have they not known: {18} There is no fear of God before their eyes. {19} Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. {20} Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
> 
> (Gal 3:22 KJV) But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
> 
> Mary Needed A Savior!
> (Luke 1:47 KJV) And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
> 
> Those in the Roman Catholic Church teach that Mary is a mediator between Jesus and us. This teaching is erroneous because the Bible teaches that Jesus is the ONLY mediator between God and man. The Bible does not teach anywhere that the redeemed of God in Heaven have any intercessory authority or ministry for those still remaining on earth.
> (1 Tim 2:5 KJV) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
> 
> Was Mary Sinless?



Yup the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was sinless. 

And also teaches that since she was sinless, she was also not subjected to the curse of sin. 

One in which was the pain in childbearing....

things that make one go HMMMM........


----------



## camily

baydoll said:


> Exactly. Right on the money!!
> 
> Now let's see if libby and the other Catholic girl will follow this bouncing ball to its conclusion or let it drop before it goes further.



I have a study Bible and it's excellent for things like this. It's a Nelson's NKJV Study Bible.


----------



## Starman3000m

camily said:


> Mary Needed A Savior!
> (Luke 1:47 KJV) And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
> 
> Those in the Roman Catholic Church teach that Mary is a mediator between Jesus and us. This teaching is erroneous because the Bible teaches that Jesus is the ONLY mediator between God and man. The Bible does not teach anywhere that the redeemed of God in Heaven have any intercessory authority or ministry for those still remaining on earth.
> (1 Tim 2:5 KJV) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
> 
> Was Mary Sinless?





Good comments and info in your complete post.


----------



## Im_Me

baydoll said:


> Well your Church states explicitly that Woman of Revelation 12 is Mary. This is a fact. Whether you believe it or not doesn't negate that fact. I am not debating what YOU believe but rather what your Church teaches. Is it true or is it false?
> 
> Camily made an excellent point regarding this....see if you can figure out what it is.



Nope.   As I am at work and have to cut grass when I get home, I won't have time to decipher it.  So tell me or we'll have to wait until later tonight before I can even think of it again.


----------



## camily

baydoll said:


> Yup the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was sinless.
> 
> And also teaches that since she was sinless, she was also not subjected to the curse of sin.
> 
> One in which was the pain in childbearing....
> 
> things that make one go HMMMM........



No where in the Bible does it speak of Mary's death so the catholic belief of her ascending into heaven is unfounded. Mary died just as everyone else. The wage of sin is death. Mary was a sinner. She was a wonderful person and chosen by God to be Jesus' mother. I'm sure she was as close to perfect as they come, no doubt. But sinless? No, no one but Jesus was sinless.


----------



## baydoll

camily said:


> I have a study Bible and it's excellent for things like this. It's a Nelson's NKJV Study Bible.



I don't have that one....but now I wish I did, lol! Cool Bible tools! I love it!


----------



## baydoll

Im_Me said:


> Nope.   As I am at work and have to cut grass when I get home, I won't have time to decipher it.  So tell me or we'll have to wait until later tonight before I can even think of it again.



It's not that hard, Im_Me. Really. Follow the bouncing ball: 

1.) your Church says Mary is the Woman of Rev 12;

2.) your Church says Mary was sinless her whole life;

3.) your Church says that since Mary was sinless her whole life she was also not subjected to the curse of sins one of which being:

4.) pain in childbearing. 

5.) what is the Woman in Revelation 12 doing? (I'll give you a hint: check out verse 2)

6.)


----------



## baydoll

camily said:


> No where in the Bible does it speak of Mary's death so the catholic belief of her ascending into heaven is unfounded. Mary died just as everyone else. The wage of sin is death. Mary was a sinner. She was a wonderful person and chosen by God to be Jesus' mother. I'm sure she was as close to perfect as they come, no doubt. But sinless? No, no one but Jesus was sinless.




And all God's Children said:

AMEN!!!


----------



## Im_Me

camily said:


> No where in the Bible does it speak of Mary's death so the catholic belief of her ascending into heaven is unfounded. Mary died just as everyone else. The wage of sin is death. Mary was a sinner. She was a wonderful person and chosen by God to be Jesus' mother. I'm sure she was as close to perfect as they come, no doubt. But sinless? No, no one but Jesus was sinless.



As we saw in the first article, Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy of the Messiah ("Seed of the woman") and His Virgin Mother (the "woman").  Notice that God says "I will put enmity between you (the serpent) and the woman", that is, between Satan and Mary!  God foretold in the Garden that He would put enmity between the Devil and the Mother of the Messiah.  Satan would be enemies not only with Mary's Son, but with Mary herself! 

Now the Bible says that sin makes us enemies of God (Mt 12:30; Ro 5:8-10; James 4:4) and children of the Devil (Jn 8:44; I Jn 3:10).  A sinner is not Satan's enemy, but his ally--even his "child", or seed! Were Mary ever a sinner, she would not be the devil's enemy, as God had decreed; she would have been the devil's daughter and the enemy of God-the enemy of her own Son! God's promise to put enmity between her and the ancient Serpent would then be a lie! 

Yet God cannot lie, and His word always comes to pass (Is 55:10).  So He did indeed put enmity between Satan and the Woman by preserving the Woman from all sin, original and actual.  Mary is not a child of the Devil; by God's Will she is a daughter of God from the beginning of her existence and the ally of her Seed against the evil one. 

In Luke 1:28, the angel Gabriel greets Mary as "full of grace".  Protestant translations often render this as "highly favored", but this is a weak, inaccurate translation.  The Greek term here is kecharitomene, a perfect present participle of the verb charitoo, which denotes "grace".  A perfect participle indicates an action completed in the past with existing results, and a present participle denotes continuous or repeated action. 

So kecharitomene means "you who were and continue to be full of and completed in grace".  Now grace is not mere unmerited favor, but God's gift of spiritual life and communion with Himself.  Sin and grace are opposed (Romans 5:20-21), and grace saves us from sin (Eph 2:5, 8). So Mary's fullness of grace indicates a complete absence of sin.  Thus Luke 1:28 provides a second hint at Mary's sinlessness. 

We also see a type of Mary's sinlessness in the holiness of the Ark of the Covenant.  The original ark was clearly a holy vessel.  God meticulously outlined the construction (Ex 25:10-22) and the Holy Spirit actually inspired the artisan who formed it (31:2-3)!  It was made from the finest, purest materials and consecrated to the service of God in the Tabernacle.  The Ark had to be perfect and holy, worthy to bear the awesome Presence of the Holy One of Israel.  It was so holy only a few could touch it (Num 4:15, 2 Sam 6:2-7). 

If such an inanimate object could be so holy, how much more holy must Mary have been?  In order to be a worthy vessel for the all-holy God, she had to be utterly holy.  Like the original ark, she was set apart for that sacred task from the beginning of her existence.  This is why Jesus preserved her from contracting original sin by applying the sin-cleansing merits of His Precious Blood to her beforehand. 

Christ is the Holy One of Israel in the flesh.  The Bible tells us over and over again about the utter Holiness of God.  It even says that His name is "Holy" (Is 57:15); and in Hebrew thought ones name expressed ones essence.  If God is Holiness Itself, how could He dwell in an unholy vessel? How could the One Who demands holiness from His people (Lev 19:2) and particularly from the priests who minister before Him (Ex 28:6) dwell for nine months in an unholy woman! 

Finally, the Bible says "Holiness becometh thine house, O Lord" (Ps 93:5).  Mary was the Lord's "house" for nine months!  If holiness becometh God's house, how could Mary not be holy?  She, like the Tabernacle of old, had to be utterly pure and holy, completely sanctified and consecrated to the Lord, for she was to be the living Holy of holies, the sacred dwelling of the all-holy God. 

Taken together, these passages present a powerful biblical case for Mary's sinlessness.  God promised to make her the enemy of the father of sin, the angel declared her to be embued with spiritual life, and her role in bearing the Holy One necessitated that she be utterly holy, like the ark or Tabernacle of old. 

Point and counter point....Copy-and-Paste...

Personally I think it's all a distraction.  As a minimum, Mary is a great example of faith and sacifice...I've said it before...But I try to follow and Serve the Lord.  

In our mass we have barely a mention of Mary in a service that lasts over and hour.  Anyone that says a rosary, does so in addition to their devotional to God and Jesus ...or they are doing it wrong.  Pray to the dead or don't pray to the dead,  WHATEVER! 

It matters not to me whether she was assumed.  But the point is that Libby and the Church have well reasoned points that take up reams and reams. In addition to the reams and reams of points that you have to refute them.  

When all that matters is: Was Jesus our savior and do we follow God.

I've taken enough of my time with this.  You've proved that you have a point and you know something.  I've proven I can cut and paste.   

BUT.... Was it really for the glory of God or so we could show what we know?


----------



## Im_Me

P. S.  have a great day!


----------



## hotcoffee

OK... no one responded to this...

I've seen this happen a lot over the years.... the interpretation of *one verse *can go down *several paths...*  I learned that this is the Spirit guiding us... well it's the Spirit if you are in prayer during these discussions....anyway....

When I saw this verse I was thinking.... Jesus knows the future... He knows that the catholic church will want to put Mary on the list of people to pray to... and that will be yet another thing to cause dissent.... 

I believe that Jesus knows the past, present, and future of everything...

Anyway.... I feel that He is saying here....  It's more important to follow His teachings.... 

*Jesus said the only way to get to Heaven was through Him.... *

I think what He's saying here is "Look it's the Son, not the Mother!"  *Why would you spend you time idolizing the mother?*
*I'm sure Mary would agree that He is the Messiah.... He went to the Cross for our sins... He should get all the praise and glory....*


----------



## Im_Me

hotcoffee said:


> OK... no one responded to this...
> 
> I've seen this happen a lot over the years.... the interpretation of *one verse *can go down *several paths...*  I learned that this is the Spirit guiding us... well it's the Spirit if you are in prayer during these discussions....anyway....
> 
> When I saw this verse I was thinking.... Jesus knows the future... He knows that the catholic church will want to put Mary on the list of people to pray to... and that will be yet another thing to cause dissent....
> 
> I believe that Jesus knows the past, present, and future of everything...
> 
> Anyway.... I feel that He is saying here....  It's more important to follow His teachings....
> 
> *Jesus said the only way to get to Heaven was through Him.... *
> 
> I think what He's saying here is "Look it's the Son, not the Mother!"  *Why would you spend you time idolizing the mother?*
> *I'm sure Mary would agree that He is the Messiah.... He went to the Cross for our sins... He should get all the praise and glory....*



Amen sister!


----------



## Im_Me

ItalianScallion said:


> Yeah ok, barf...right. I see you smiling! Ok enough PR.
> 
> That it's speaking about the Jews is inferred by the context of the surrounding verses. This is essentially how the Bible works.
> vs 1 - clothed with the sun; usually a reference to God's righteousness, so it's about believers but not Mary in this case.  Twelve stars - the 12 tribes of Israel.
> 
> vs 2 - pregnant, about to give birth; speaking about the rebirth of Israel in (Isaiah 66 v 7), plus, Christ came from the Jewish line of the tribe of Judah.
> 
> vs 5 - referring to Christ and His Ascension.
> 
> vs 6 - the woman (The Jews) was led to the desert as Israel was in the OT (Hosea 2 v 14) and (Micah 4 v 10).
> 1260 days (42 months) symbolizes a time of protection or punishment as spoken of by Daniel. He spoke a lot about the coming Judgment of Israel.
> 
> Much of Revelation has to do with God's salvation and judgment of Israel. Most of the OT is about the same thing. It is not only about the end of the world.
> I know you hate what I do here MeMe but, seriously, you should really invest in a "study Bible". It will help you immensely with good explanations of the verses but you must not get a biased version (denominational one). I highly recommend the NIV Study Bible.
> In fact, if you want I'd be happy to get you one and give it to you in a public place. (So you won't burn my house down when you see where I live). I've gotten hundreds of them for other people and they love them.



Thanks for the offer of the bible.   Though I do have a Catholic Study Bible,  it agrees with yours that the women represents the Jews.  

Even without referencing it the other night, and first grade though I may be; I understood the references to the Jews in the 12 stars and the journey through the desert.  BUT....Obstinant though it may sound.... to this simple woman of science, for me when you depict a woman that bore Jesus,  it is going to be Mary, (who obviously is a Jew), no matter what she represents.   

Now don't get me wrong I'm not trying to open the whole Marian adoration thing. The passage makes it clear that the point of the whole revelation is the Baby Jesus...The Woman is the vessel and the victim and the protected...Not the point.  

There are so many other ramifications there in the passge that I find interesting, that aren't discussed in the commentary and that we haven't touched upon.  So let's try to move on and start a new thread and see if we all can be, if not nice, at least less hostile.


.......Searching for an appropriate smiley.........


----------



## ItalianScallion

Im_Me said:


> Thanks for the offer of the bible.   Though I do have a Catholic Study Bible,  it agrees with yours that the women represents the Jews.
> 
> So let's try to move on and start a new thread and see if we all can be, if not nice, at least less hostile.
> .......Searching for an appropriate smiley.........


  

  

 

From Uncle Bill....MPD free since 2007.


----------



## camily

Nucklesack said:


> Are you seperating Mary's Immaculate conception from her life after birth?
> 
> Mary was *born *without the stain of sin, are you saying she sinned afterwards (not arguing just clarifying)?



I guess I am. All I know is "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Rom. 3:23
Not "All but Mary have sinned".
Maybe not before, but after Jesus' birth. She herself said she needed the Messiah.


----------



## baydoll

Nucklesack said:


> Are you seperating Mary's Immaculate conception from her life after birth?
> 
> Mary was *born *without the stain of sin, are you saying she sinned afterwards (not arguing just clarifying)?



Where does it say Mary was born without the strain of sin? 

Actually Mary recognized that she was a sinner.  Luke 1:46-47 says " My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my savior " It wasn’t until 1850 that the RCC endorsed Mary's sinlessness. Luke records by the Holy Spirit that Mary said she was a sinner by her admission and she needed a Savior, YET a pope says she did not. So either God's Word is wrong in this or a (very fallible) man called the pope is right, both can't be true.

As Camily pointed out, Romans 3:23 says " ALL have fallen short of the glory of God " (emp. mine) and that would include Mary.


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> Where does it say Mary was born without the strain of sin?
> 
> Actually Mary recognized that she was a sinner.  Luke 1:46-47 says " My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my savior " It wasn’t until 1850 that the RCC endorsed Mary's sinlessness. Luke records by the Holy Spirit that Mary said she was a sinner by her admission and she needed a Savior, YET a pope says she did not. So either God's Word is wrong in this or a (very fallible) man called the pope is right, both can't be true.
> 
> As Camily pointed out, Romans 3:23 says " ALL have fallen short of the glory of God " (emp. mine) and that would include Mary.



Back from Virginia and trying to catch up.  
Do you believe in Original Sin?  That we all have it on our souls?


----------



## baydoll

hotcoffee said:


> OK... no one responded to this...
> 
> I've seen this happen a lot over the years.... the interpretation of *one verse *can go down *several paths...*  I learned that this is the Spirit guiding us... well it's the Spirit if you are in prayer during these discussions....anyway....
> 
> When I saw this verse I was thinking.... Jesus knows the future... He knows that the catholic church will want to put Mary on the list of people to pray to... and that will be yet another thing to cause dissent....
> 
> I believe that Jesus knows the past, present, and future of everything...
> 
> Anyway.... I feel that He is saying here....  It's more important to follow His teachings....
> 
> *Jesus said the only way to get to Heaven was through Him.... *
> 
> I think what He's saying here is "Look it's the Son, not the Mother!"  *Why would you spend you time idolizing the mother?*
> *I'm sure Mary would agree that He is the Messiah.... He went to the Cross for our sins... He should get all the praise and glory....*



And I think if Mary were to see what is happening down here, she would be both horrified and sadden by what the Catholic Church has made her into: that of a raging She Goddess. 

The TRUE Mary is anything but. She was a humble Jewish girl who was blessed beyond measure of having the priviledge of bringing forth the Savior of the world.

 But according to the Catholic Church she goes far beyond that.


----------



## hotcoffee

baydoll said:


> And I think if Mary were to see what is happening down here, she would be both horrified and sadden by what the Catholic Church has made her into: that of a raging She Goddess.
> 
> The TRUE Mary is anything but. She was a humble Jewish girl who was blessed beyond measure of having the priviledge of bringing forth the Savior of the world.
> 
> But according to the Catholic Church she goes far beyond that.



We are on the same page....

I went back and read Revelations 12 again...  I have notes all over Revelations in my Thumper Study Edition... but none in this chapter... odd... I guess the controversy keeps teachers and pastors from talking about it....

At second reading without any notes or structured study to guide me.....*I think* the woman in that chapter is humanity itself....


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Back from Virginia and trying to catch up.
> Do you believe in Original Sin?  That we all have it on our souls?



What would you say is the 'biblical' definition of sin is?


----------



## baydoll

hotcoffee said:


> We are on the same page....
> 
> I went back and read Revelations 12 again...  I have notes all over Revelations in my Thumper Study Edition... but none in this chapter... odd... I guess the controversy keeps teachers and pastors from talking about it....
> 
> At second reading without any notes or structured study to guide me.....*I think* the woman in that chapter is humanity itself....



Did you know that the RCC declares this 'Woman' to be Mary? And that since  Mary supposedly was without sin, she was then exempt from the curses of sin. One of which was this:


"To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you." Genesis 3:16

And yet we clearly see the Woman in Rev 12 suffering from the consequences of sin.

Edited to add: what conclusion would you come to regarding this?


----------



## hotcoffee

baydoll said:


> What would you say is the 'biblical' definition of sin is?



Any action that will cause you to hide from God... any action that causes a seperation from God... 

Simply... if I sin... I need Jesus to whisper it's ok in God's ear for me...



baydoll said:


> Did you know that the RCC declares this 'Woman' to be Mary? And that since  Mary supposedly was without sin, she was then exempt from the curses of sin. One of which was this:
> 
> 
> "To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you." Genesis 3:16
> 
> And yet we clearly see the Woman in Rev 12 suffering from the consequences of sin.
> 
> Edited to add: what conclusion would you come to regarding this?



I am not a member of the RCC...  I'm also not going to miss a beautiful chance to discuss Revelation 12 because of the desire of some to argue the subject....  


I'll get back to my answer to the Genesis v Revelation woman after I put away the groceries... and make hubby's breakfast...k?


----------



## baydoll

hotcoffee said:


> Any action that will cause you to hide from God... any action that causes a seperation from God...
> 
> Simply... if I sin... I need Jesus to whisper it's ok in God's ear for me...



Aren't you forgetting something? 




> I am not a member of the RCC...  I'm also not going to miss a beautiful chance to discuss Revelation 12 because of the desire of some to argue the subject....
> 
> 
> I'll get back to my answer to the Genesis v Revelation woman after I put away the groceries... and make hubby's breakfast...k



No problem. : ) 

Actually I'm not arguing but just trying to make a very important point to the Catholics on here that their Church erred big times on this.

Sorry for the confusion, Hot Coffee.


----------



## libby

Before I begin I would like to point out that, baydoll, you have not answered my question about orignal sin, which was posed as a result of your Bible quote that "all have sinned".  
So, I will move on to the new topic presented, which, as I read it, seems to be that the woman's pains (in Rev. 12), make it impossible for her to be Mary if Mary is sinless as the RCC states because pain is a consequence of sin.  Is that a correct understanding of the point?


----------



## Starman3000m

*Defining "Original Sin"*

This discussion was started on the "Born Again Cult" thread - but merits its own thread since this is a subject all of its own that yields differing opinions.

(Thanks to libby and baydoll for getting this one going - should be interesting)



			
				libby said:
			
		

> Back from Virginia and trying to catch up.
> Do you believe in Original Sin? That we all have it on our souls?





			
				baydoll said:
			
		

> What would you say is the 'biblical' definition of sin...?


----------



## hotcoffee

OK... Understand please... that while I'm using a Thumper Study NIV.... I'm working through this on my own.... Please don't tell Jesus I led you astray... I don't mean to!  This is just _my interpretation _of what I am reading....

The woman is a sign.... foretold by Jesus in his Signs of the End Times.

Revelation 12:1  "_A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head."_

Now look at Luke 21:11 _"There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestileances in various places and fearful events and great signs from heaven." _

*IMHO * Mary was a human, chosen to be the human mother of Jesus the Mesiah.... the Son of God...  When we get to this point [Revelation]  we've already heard about the Seven Seals, the Seven Trumpets and we are just about to learn about the Seven Bowls...  we're way past a single person.... we're into the full picture of the whole Good v Evil epic.... 

The Jewish Community could not accept Jesus as the Mesiah because [among so many other things] He was born in a Stable and laid in a Manger.... the Jewish Community is looking for a bigger and badder than David type Mesiah to come save them....

For the world to see a sign that *looks like a woman*.... giving Birth.... and that child being swept up into the heavens....  that is the sign the Jewish Community has been looking for.... 

Mary was just a woman.... she had to be just a woman in order to give Jesus his humble human beginning....  if she becomes more... it gets in the way of the coming of the one and only... the Messiah

I'm just throwing this in for "oh and look what else" value...

Look at Luke 21:23 _"How dreadful it will be in those days for pregant women and nursing mothers!  There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people."_


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Before I begin I would like to point out that, baydoll, you have not answered my question about orignal sin, which was posed as a result of your Bible quote that "all have sinned".



libby - let's move this one to the new thread and go from there where we can discuss what the Holy Bible states about this topic and whereby we can discuss and better comprehend the definition of "original sin"


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> Did you know that the RCC declares this 'Woman' to be Mary? And that since  Mary supposedly was without sin, she was then exempt from the curses of sin. One of which was this:
> 
> 
> "To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you." Genesis 3:16
> 
> And yet we clearly see the Woman in Rev 12 suffering from the consequences of sin.
> 
> Edited to add: what conclusion would you come to regarding this?



Genesis says "I will greatly _multiply..."_.  That indicates that there is some pain in childbirth from the beginning.  Additionally, the RCC does not teach that Mary never endured all of the conditions that result from being a mere human, only that she responded to those challenges with "Thy will be done".

As for earlier in the thread, someone pointed out that Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God, my Savior", as though that is indicative of Mary's sin.  Well, if a man falls into a pit and it pulled out, he was saved by his rescuer.  If a man is headed towards a pit and someone stops in before he falls in, was he any less saved by the man who stopped him?  Mary was saved in anticipation of the great blessing she was to receive, and we believe it is _fitting _(which is different from calling it necessary) that the woman who bore Jesus Christ should have been so spared.  It makes holy and loving sense.

But, what about first part of the passage quoted?  "My soul _magnifies _the Lord".  How many people can say that, and this was something that the Holy Spirit determined belonged in Scripture.  Does my soul_ magnify _the Lord?  Does my soul or your soul make Jesus Christ more visible?  Speaking for myself, I can say, not likely.  Someone might catch a peek at Christ through my behaviors sometimes, but _magnify?_ 

What about Elizabeth in Luke?  Filled with the Holy Spirit she says, "Blessed is the fruit of your womb...and why is it that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"  An elder, in Jewish society, humbling themselves before the younger?  Let's remember also that Holy Scriptures tell us that Elizabeth was "filled with the Holy Spirit" when she uttered these words.  
So, what of them?  You don't agree with the Catholic interpretation, fine.  Tell me what you think that God wanted us to take from these passages.


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> libby - let's move this one to the new thread and go from there where we can discuss what the Holy Bible states about this topic and whereby we can discuss and better comprehend the definition of "original sin"



Well, my friend, that sounds dandy, but I've been accused of avoiding questions.  I may have missed one here or there, but by no means as a pattern.  
Right off the bat this morning I asked a question and instead of answering, baydoll gave me another one.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Well, my friend, that sounds dandy, but I've been accused of avoiding questions.  I may have missed one here or there, but by no means as a pattern.
> Right off the bat this morning I asked a question and instead of answering, baydoll gave me another one.



No problem, libby, it's just that we all have a tendency to stray away from the main topic of a thread and interject another topic all together, thus, derailing the original point of discussion.

If there is an Original Sin regarding posting on a forum thread it would be the act of straying off topic and I believe we are all guilty of that one! LOL 
I hope you had a good time in Virginia.


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> No problem, libby, it's just that we all have a tendency to stray away from the main topic of a thread and interject another topic all together, thus, derailing the original point of discussion.
> 
> If there is an Original Sin regarding posting on a forum thread it would be the act of straying off topic and I believe we are all guilty of that one! LOL
> I hope you had a good time in Virginia.



Yes, I did, thank you.  Nieces graduated high school; a weekend filled with the company of the kind of people I'd like to be someday.
Had an opportunity to worship Jesus Christ at Mass Saturday morning, and got my time with Him this morning at my own church.  Now I get to come to this forum and contemplate Him, and read about Him, for a while more before my household duties call.


----------



## Im_Me

libby said:


> Yes, I did, thank you.  Nieces graduated high school; a weekend filled with the company of the kind of people I'd like to be someday.
> Had an opportunity to worship Jesus Christ at Mass Saturday morning, and got my time with Him this morning at my own church.  Now I get to come to this forum and contemplate Him, and read about Him, for a while more before my household duties call.



Hey Catholic Buddy!  Glad you're back.  

On the subject of pain in child birth; by the time Adam and Eve sinned the human physiology was set.  It seems to me that pain in childbirth is fairly inevitable from the physiology.  Large body meets small passageway and things must move A Lot.  Just a thought, though.  Doesn't really add to the discussion.


----------



## Im_Me

hotcoffee said:


> OK... Understand please... that while I'm using a Thumper Study NIV.... I'm working through this on my own.... Please don't tell Jesus I led you astray... I don't mean to!  This is just _my interpretation _of what I am reading....
> 
> The woman is a sign.... foretold by Jesus in his Signs of the End Times.
> 
> Revelation 12:1  "_A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head."_
> 
> Now look at Luke 21:11 _"There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestileances in various places and fearful events and great signs from heaven." _
> 
> *IMHO * Mary was a human, chosen to be the human mother of Jesus the Mesiah.... the Son of God...  When we get to this point [Revelation]  we've already heard about the Seven Seals, the Seven Trumpets and we are just about to learn about the Seven Bowls...  we're way past a single person.... we're into the full picture of the whole Good v Evil epic....
> 
> The Jewish Community could not accept Jesus as the Mesiah because [among so many other things] He was born in a Stable and laid in a Manger.... the Jewish Community is looking for a bigger and badder than David type Mesiah to come save them....
> 
> For the world to see a sign that *looks like a woman*.... giving Birth.... and that child being swept up into the heavens....  that is the sign the Jewish Community has been looking for....
> 
> Mary was just a woman.... she had to be just a woman in order to give Jesus his humble human beginning....  if she becomes more... it gets in the way of the coming of the one and only... the Messiah
> 
> I'm just throwing this in for "oh and look what else" value...
> 
> Look at Luke 21:23 _"How dreadful it will be in those days for pregant women and nursing mothers!  There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people."_



I like some of the points you make.  

I considered why, since the point of the revelation is Jesus' conquering Satan they would begin with the pregnant woman nat the moment of painful birth.   Seems like it shows some vulnerability there... a child in the womb..the precariousness of birth..... along the line  of your humble birth analogy.  Despite that there is total victory in the end...

Just a thought as I go off the the ball park...


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Before I begin I would like to point out that, baydoll, you have not answered my question about orignal sin, which was posed as a result of your Bible quote that "all have sinned".



Sorry I am now just getting to this, been busy the last few days...

The reason why I did not answer your question, libby, is because what your religion says what 'originial sin' is far different from what the Bible says of sin. I just want to make sure that you know the difference yourself before I answer it. 




> So, I will move on to the new topic presented, which, as I read it, seems to be that the woman's pains (in Rev. 12), make it impossible for her to be Mary if Mary is sinless as the RCC states because pain is a consequence of sin.  Is that a correct understanding of the point?



Do you believe this or not?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Genesis says "I will greatly _multiply..."_.  That indicates that there is some pain in childbirth from the beginning.  Additionally, the RCC does not teach that Mary never endured all of the conditions that result from being a mere human, only that she responded to those challenges with "Thy will be done".
> 
> As for earlier in the thread, someone pointed out that Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God, my Savior", as though that is indicative of Mary's sin.  Well, if a man falls into a pit and it pulled out, he was saved by his rescuer.  If a man is headed towards a pit and someone stops in before he falls in, was he any less saved by the man who stopped him?  Mary was saved in anticipation of the great blessing she was to receive, and we believe it is _fitting _(which is different from calling it necessary) that the woman who bore Jesus Christ should have been so spared.  It makes holy and loving sense.
> 
> But, what about first part of the passage quoted?  "My soul _magnifies _the Lord".  How many people can say that, and this was something that the Holy Spirit determined belonged in Scripture.  Does my soul_ magnify _the Lord?  Does my soul or your soul make Jesus Christ more visible?  Speaking for myself, I can say, not likely.  Someone might catch a peek at Christ through my behaviors sometimes, but _magnify?_
> 
> What about Elizabeth in Luke?  Filled with the Holy Spirit she says, "Blessed is the fruit of your womb...and why is it that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"  An elder, in Jewish society, humbling themselves before the younger?  Let's remember also that Holy Scriptures tell us that Elizabeth was "filled with the Holy Spirit" when she uttered these words.
> So, what of them?  You don't agree with the Catholic interpretation, fine.  Tell me what you think that God wanted us to take from these passages.



I interpret it to simply read that Elizabeth (as well as her infant son John in her womb) was acknowledging the WHO that was IN Mary's womb being far more important (and rightly so) than the one carrying that blessed Child. This is the tragic mistake the Catholic Church has made. Making the mother of that Child FAR greater and superior than the Lord Himself.  

Reading Scripture as a whole, one finds the Mary of the Bible far different than the one found in the Catholic Church. Reading the entirety of the NT, we see (or should see if one isn't being hoodwinked by the Catholic Church) that the True Mary of Scripture is a 'bondslave of the Lord' (Luke 1:38) and 'blessed AMONG women' (Luke 1:48) not we are bondslaves of her or that she is blessed ABOVE all like the Catholic Church has placed her. 

It is highly revealing that Jesus never exalted His mother like the Catholic Church have done. In reality, Jesus is often seen downplaying Hs relationship with her. But in Catholic-land we see the exact opposite. Mary is often seen as knocking Jesus completely off His Throne and taking over all His roles and attributes.

You (and your religion) read FAR more into those simple passages than what is really there.


----------



## baydoll

Im_Me said:


> Hey Catholic Buddy!  Glad you're back.
> 
> On the subject of pain in child birth; by the time Adam and Eve sinned the human physiology was set.  It seems to me that pain in childbirth is fairly inevitable from the physiology.  Large body meets small passageway and things must move A Lot.  Just a thought, though.  Doesn't really add to the discussion.





Actually you bought up an interesting point that does add to this discussion. 

So with that line of thought, would this include Mary? Why or why not?


----------



## baydoll

Im_Me said:


> I like some of the points you make.
> 
> I considered why, since the point of the revelation is Jesus' conquering Satan they would begin with the pregnant woman nat the moment of painful birth.   Seems like it shows some vulnerability there... a child in the womb..the precariousness of birth..... along the line  of your humble birth analogy.  Despite that there is total victory in the end...
> 
> Just a thought as I go off the the ball park...



So is this 'Woman' Mary or not?


----------



## camily

*Libby, I'm not good at quoting and replying in the same text, so this is the best I could do.....*

Genesis says "I will greatly _multiply..."_.  That indicates that there is some pain in childbirth from the beginning.  Additionally, the RCC does not teach that Mary never endured all of the conditions that result from being a mere human, only that she responded to those challenges with "Thy will be done".

*My Bible reads like this, 
Genesis 3:16

16 To the woman He said: 
      “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; 
      In pain you shall bring forth children; 
      Your desire shall be for your husband, 
      And he shall rule over you.” 
Which indicated to me that a womans joy in conceiving will be saddened by the pain of it, as "your sorrowful conception". Also see John 16:21.*

As for earlier in the thread, someone pointed out that Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God, my Savior", as though that is indicative of Mary's sin.  Well, if a man falls into a pit and it pulled out, he was saved by his rescuer.  If a man is headed towards a pit and someone stops in before he falls in, was he any less saved by the man who stopped him?  Mary was saved in anticipation of the great blessing she was to receive, and we believe it is _fitting _(which is different from calling it necessary) that the woman who bore Jesus Christ should have been so spared.  It makes holy and loving sense.

* That's Savior with a capital "S", as in another name for Jesus. I do not believe Mary was using the term Savior the same as she would for someone who was stopping her from falling.
The Greek word for Savior "Soter". The ichthys (the christian fish symbol) used to be a secret symbol used by Christians. Ichthus (ΙΧΘΥΣ, Greek for fish) can be read as an acrostic,a word formed from the first letters of several words. It compiles to "Jesus, God's son, savior," in ancient Greek "Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ", Iēsous Khristos Theou Huios, Sōtēr.

Iota (i) is the first letter of Iēsous (Ἰησοῦς), Greek for Jesus. 
Chi (kh) is the first letter of Khristos (Χριστóς), Greek for "Christ" or "anointed". 
Theta (th) is the first letter of Theou (Θεοῦ), that means "God's", genitive case of Θεóς, Theos, "God". 
Upsilon (u) is the first letter of huios (Υἱός), Greek for Son. 
Sigma (s) is the first letter of sōtēr (Σωτήρ), Greek for Savior. 
I c&p'd the last part because I didn't know how to make those symbols. *


But, what about first part of the passage quoted?  "My soul _magnifies _the Lord".  How many people can say that, and this was something that the Holy Spirit determined belonged in Scripture.  Does my soul_ magnify _the Lord?  Does my soul or your soul make Jesus Christ more visible?  Speaking for myself, I can say, not likely.  Someone might catch a peek at Christ through my behaviors sometimes, but _magnify?_ 

*The Greek word is “megaluno,” which means “to make large,” or “to magnify.” It is the verb form of the word “mega” — big, large, great. We know this word in the expression megabucks (big bucks) and in such words as megaphone(enlarged sound) and megalopolis (a huge city). I suppose we could coin an English verb to express the desire to make something big by saying, “let’s megatize it.” That would be the idea of “megaluno” — to make something big, to magnify it or make it large. She is expressing the desire that everything about her, a magnifying glass for people to see more clearly the glories of Christ.*

What about Elizabeth in Luke?  Filled with the Holy Spirit she says, "Blessed is the fruit of your womb...?"  An elder, in Jewish society, humbling themselves before the younger?  Let's remember also that Holy Scriptures tell us that Elizabeth was "filled with the Holy Spirit" when she uttered these words.  
So, what of them?  
*Elizabeth was marveling at the grace that allowed her a role in God's great plan, not that Mary came to her. The angel had told Zacharias that his baby would be filled fill the Holy Spirit even in the womb (Luke 1:15). The babe lept in her womb when Mary spoke giving testimony to the Messiah. *

You don't agree with the Catholic interpretation, fine.  Tell me what you think that God wanted us to take from these passages.
*Blessed is used several times. Here is one example where God is specifically talking to Isrealites, even their bowls and kneeding baskets.
Deuteronomy 28
Blessings at Gerizim
 1"(A)Now it shall be, if you diligently obey the LORD your God, being careful to do all His commandments which I command you today, the LORD your God (B)will set you high above all the nations of the earth. 
 2"All these blessings will come upon you and (C)overtake you if you obey the LORD your God: 

 3"Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be (D)in the country. 

 4"Blessed shall be the offspring of your body and the produce of your ground and the offspring of your beasts, the increase of your herd and the young of your flock. 

 5"Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. 

 6"Blessed shall you be (E)when you come in, and blessed shall you be when you go out. 

*


----------



## Im_Me

Im_Me said:


> Thanks for the offer of the bible.   Though I do have a Catholic Study Bible,  it agrees with yours that the women represents the Jews.
> 
> Even without referencing it the other night, and first grade though I may be; I understood the references to the Jews in the 12 stars and the journey through the desert.  BUT....Obstinant though it may sound.... to this simple woman of science, for me when you depict a woman that bore Jesus,  it is going to be Mary, (who obviously is a Jew), no matter what she represents.
> 
> Now don't get me wrong I'm not trying to open the whole Marian adoration thing. The passage makes it clear that the point of the whole revelation is the Baby Jesus...The Woman is the vessel and the victim and the protected...Not the point.
> 
> There are so many other ramifications there in the passge that I find interesting, that aren't discussed in the commentary and that we haven't touched upon.  So let's try to move on and start a new thread and see if we all can be, if not nice, at least less hostile.
> 
> 
> .......Searching for an appropriate smiley.........



Baydoll-----This is what I said days ago...I still stand by my interpretation...


----------



## baydoll

camily said:


> *Libby, I'm not good at quoting and replying in the same text, so this is the best I could do.....*
> 
> Genesis says "I will greatly _multiply..."_.  That indicates that there is some pain in childbirth from the beginning.  Additionally, the RCC does not teach that Mary never endured all of the conditions that result from being a mere human, only that she responded to those challenges with "Thy will be done".
> 
> *My Bible reads like this,
> Genesis 3:16
> 
> 16 To the woman He said:
> “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
> In pain you shall bring forth children;
> Your desire shall be for your husband,
> And he shall rule over you.”
> Which indicated to me that a womans joy in conceiving will be saddened by the pain of it, as "your sorrowful conception". Also see John 16:21.*
> 
> As for earlier in the thread, someone pointed out that Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God, my Savior", as though that is indicative of Mary's sin.  Well, if a man falls into a pit and it pulled out, he was saved by his rescuer.  If a man is headed towards a pit and someone stops in before he falls in, was he any less saved by the man who stopped him?  Mary was saved in anticipation of the great blessing she was to receive, and we believe it is _fitting _(which is different from calling it necessary) that the woman who bore Jesus Christ should have been so spared.  It makes holy and loving sense.
> 
> * That's Savior with a capital "S", as in another name for Jesus. I do not believe Mary was using the term Savior the same as she would for someone who was stopping her from falling.
> The Greek word for Savior "Soter". The ichthys (the christian fish symbol) used to be a secret symbol used by Christians. Ichthus (ΙΧΘΥΣ, Greek for fish) can be read as an acrostic,a word formed from the first letters of several words. It compiles to "Jesus, God's son, savior," in ancient Greek "Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ", Iēsous Khristos Theou Huios, Sōtēr.
> 
> Iota (i) is the first letter of Iēsous (Ἰησοῦς), Greek for Jesus.
> Chi (kh) is the first letter of Khristos (Χριστóς), Greek for "Christ" or "anointed".
> Theta (th) is the first letter of Theou (Θεοῦ), that means "God's", genitive case of Θεóς, Theos, "God".
> Upsilon (u) is the first letter of huios (Υἱός), Greek for Son.
> Sigma (s) is the first letter of sōtēr (Σωτήρ), Greek for Savior.
> I c&p'd the last part because I didn't know how to make those symbols. *
> 
> 
> But, what about first part of the passage quoted?  "My soul _magnifies _the Lord".  How many people can say that, and this was something that the Holy Spirit determined belonged in Scripture.  Does my soul_ magnify _the Lord?  Does my soul or your soul make Jesus Christ more visible?  Speaking for myself, I can say, not likely.  Someone might catch a peek at Christ through my behaviors sometimes, but _magnify?_
> 
> *The Greek word is “megaluno,” which means “to make large,” or “to magnify.” It is the verb form of the word “mega” — big, large, great. We know this word in the expression megabucks (big bucks) and in such words as megaphone(enlarged sound) and megalopolis (a huge city). I suppose we could coin an English verb to express the desire to make something big by saying, “let’s megatize it.” That would be the idea of “megaluno” — to make something big, to magnify it or make it large. She is expressing the desire that everything about her, a magnifying glass for people to see more clearly the glories of Christ.*
> 
> What about Elizabeth in Luke?  Filled with the Holy Spirit she says, "Blessed is the fruit of your womb...?"  An elder, in Jewish society, humbling themselves before the younger?  Let's remember also that Holy Scriptures tell us that Elizabeth was "filled with the Holy Spirit" when she uttered these words.
> So, what of them?
> *Elizabeth was marveling at the grace that allowed her a role in God's great plan, not that Mary came to her. The angel had told Zacharias that his baby would be filled fill the Holy Spirit even in the womb (Luke 1:15). The babe lept in her womb when Mary spoke giving testimony to the Messiah. *
> 
> You don't agree with the Catholic interpretation, fine.  Tell me what you think that God wanted us to take from these passages.
> *Blessed is used several times. Here is one example where God is specifically talking to Isrealites, even their bowls and kneeding baskets.
> Deuteronomy 28
> Blessings at Gerizim
> 1"(A)Now it shall be, if you diligently obey the LORD your God, being careful to do all His commandments which I command you today, the LORD your God (B)will set you high above all the nations of the earth.
> 2"All these blessings will come upon you and (C)overtake you if you obey the LORD your God:
> 
> 3"Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be (D)in the country.
> 
> 4"Blessed shall be the offspring of your body and the produce of your ground and the offspring of your beasts, the increase of your herd and the young of your flock.
> 
> 5"Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl.
> 
> 6"Blessed shall you be (E)when you come in, and blessed shall you be when you go out.
> 
> *



Excellent post. Thanks, Camily. : )



Also, 'Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed (Luke 11:27). Here was an excellent opportunity for our Lord to announce His mother was indeed worthy of praise and adoration. So what was His response? 'On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it'  (Luke 11:28). 

Meaning, to Jesus, obedience to God’s Word was more important than being the woman who gave birth to the Savior.


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by Im_Me
> Thanks for the offer of the bible. Though I do have a Catholic Study Bible, it agrees with yours that the women represents the Jews.
> 
> Even without referencing it the other night, and first grade though I may be; I understood the references to the Jews in the 12 stars and the journey through the desert. BUT....Obstinant though it may sound.... to this simple woman of science, for me when you depict a woman that bore Jesus, it is going to be Mary, (who obviously is a Jew), no matter what she represents.
> 
> Now don't get me wrong I'm not trying to open the whole Marian adoration thing. The passage makes it clear that the point of the whole revelation is the Baby Jesus...The Woman is the vessel and the victim and the protected...Not the point.
> 
> There are so many other ramifications there in the passge that I find interesting, that aren't discussed in the commentary and that we haven't touched upon. So let's try to move on and start a new thread and see if we all can be, if not nice, at least less hostile.
> 
> 
> .......Searching for an appropriate smiley.........
> 
> Baydoll-----This is what I said days ago...I still stand by my interpretation...



Thanks, Im_Me. 

So how can this Woman be 'Mary' if she is obviously suffering the consequences of sin?


----------



## camily

baydoll said:


> Excellent post. Thanks, Camily. : )
> 
> 
> 
> Also, 'Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed (Luke 11:27). Here was an excellent opportunity for our Lord to announce His mother was indeed worthy of praise and adoration. So what was His response? 'On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it'  (Luke 11:28).
> 
> Meaning, to Jesus, obedience to God’s Word was more important than being the woman who gave birth to the Savior.



Thanks Babydoll. I'm trying. I don't consider myself "smart" when it comes to finding what I'm looking for in the Bible so this is actually teaching me a lot. Sometime I surprise even myself.


----------



## baydoll

camily said:


> Thanks Babydoll. I'm trying. I don't consider myself "smart" when it comes to finding what I'm looking for in the Bible so this is actually teaching me a lot. Sometime I surprise even myself.



Well I for one think you are doing an amazing job!  

(Not that I drink beer, lol! I'm pretending that's root beer in those mugs!)


----------



## Im_Me

baydoll said:


> I interpret it to simply read that Elizabeth (as well as her infant son John in her womb) was acknowledging the WHO that was IN Mary's womb being far more important (and rightly so) than the one carrying that blessed Child. This is the tragic mistake the Catholic Church has made. Making the mother of that Child FAR greater and superior than the Lord Himself.
> 
> Reading Scripture as a whole, one finds the Mary of the Bible far different than the one found in the Catholic Church. Reading the entirety of the NT, we see (or should see if one isn't being hoodwinked by the Catholic Church) that the True Mary of Scripture is a 'bondslave of the Lord' (Luke 1:38) and 'blessed AMONG women' (Luke 1:48) not we are bondslaves of her or that she is blessed ABOVE all like the Catholic Church has placed her.
> 
> It is highly revealing that Jesus never exalted His mother like the Catholic Church have done. In reality, Jesus is often seen downplaying Hs relationship with her. But in Catholic-land we see the exact opposite. Mary is often seen as knocking Jesus completely off His Throne and taking over all His roles and attributes.
> 
> You (and your religion) read FAR more into those simple passages than what is really there.



Baydoll Your Rhetoric is way out of whack with the Church teachings.....

We do hold Mary in high regard, but not higher than the Trinity.  The official rite of the Church -the Mass-mentions her in one or two lines and that is ALL.  There is nothing of her in the Baptism or Confirmation.  

Most Catholics never say a Rosary..Or at most one or two per year.  

If we pray to her (as in the Hail Mary)...It is only to have her pray for us.  We do not give her any mystical powers of her own.  

I agree that the point of Jesus being here was to save all of us.  He did make a point of "putting Mary in her place" after He was found at the temple as a child and at the wedding at Cana.  But there are places in the Bible where she is revered-  by the angel when her selection as the vessel of Jesus, which the Hail Mary quotes.  Jesus also set up for her to be protected before He went back up to Heaven after the Pentacost...sorry no bible here for references, and I've got to get to work...


----------



## camily

baydoll said:


> Well I for one think you are doing an amazing job!
> 
> (Not that I drink beer, lol! I'm pretending that's root beer in those mugs!)



Well, I do drink beer. I don't think that's a sin.  Just not supposed to get drunk.


----------



## Im_Me

baydoll said:


> Thanks, Im_Me.
> 
> So how can this Woman be 'Mary' if she is obviously suffering the consequences of sin?



Baydoll are we practicing Christianity or Bible facts.  

What my one post said was I think that pain in childbirth is a fact of our physiology not original sin.  That was set before Eve.  See also the latest posts the Original sin thread.


----------



## libby

Camily, Elizabeth said "who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me."  Mary was special because Jesus was Divine.  The more in awe of His Divinity you are, the more in awe of her motherhood you would be.  The less impressed with His Divinity, the less you will think of her motherhood.

Magnify- other than trying to give me an lesson in Greek, I don't see how you answered my question. _ Inspired Scripture _tells us that Mary's soul _magnifies the Lord._  She makes Him more visible.  How?  As in the wedding at Cana, she says, "do whatever He tells you".

Also, as far as "putting her in her place" in assorted passages, I've answered that in other places, so I'll only sum it up here.  
You are certainly correct in that doing the Will of the Father is what makes us mothers/brothers/family of Jesus.  He was not saying what she didn't do, just pointing out where to place the emphasis.  
As a matter of fact, if doing the Will of God is what makes us His mother/brother, etc, then she must have, quite literally, done the Will of God because she was , quite literally, the mother of God [the Son]


----------



## camily

Im_Me said:


> Baydoll Your Rhetoric is way out of whack with the Church teachings.....
> 
> We do hold Mary in high regard, but not higher than the Trinity.  The official rite of the Church -the Mass-mentions her in one or two lines and that is ALL.  There is nothing of her in the Baptism or Confirmation.
> 
> Most Catholics never say a Rosary..Or at most one or two per year.
> 
> *If we pray to her (as in the Hail Mary)...It is only to have her pray for us.  We do not give her any mystical powers of her own.  *
> 
> I agree that the point of Jesus being here was to save all of us.  He did make a point of "putting Mary in her place" after He was found at the temple as a child and at the wedding at Cana.  But there are places in the Bible where she is revered-  by the angel when her selection as the vessel of Jesus, which the Hail Mary quotes.  Jesus also set up for her to be protected before He went back up to Heaven after the Pentacost...sorry no bible here for references, and I've got to get to work...



Dead people don't pray for you. They worship God. I think it's incredibly wrong to pray to anyone but God in Jesus' name. Since it says to pray in Jesus' name isn't the Hail Mary wrong for fundamentally because you are not asking in Jesus' name, not to mention you are praying to someone other than God?
ex: John 14:13 – And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
John 14:14 – If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
John 15:16 – Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. 
John 16:23 – And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. 
John 16:24 – Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.
John 16:26 – At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you.
Please, show me where is says anything along the lines of "pray to Mary to pray for you". Why would you do that? Do you think Mary hears prayers? She was a HUMAN.
 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God..." 

(Exodus 20:4-5)


----------



## Im_Me

camily said:


> Dead people don't pray for you. They worship God. I think it's incredibly wrong to pray to anyone but God in Jesus' name. Since it says to pray in Jesus' name isn't the Hail Mary wrong for fundamentally because you are not asking in Jesus' name, not to mention you are praying to someone other than God?
> ex: John 14:13 – And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
> John 14:14 – If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
> John 15:16 – Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
> John 16:23 – And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.
> John 16:24 – Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.
> John 16:26 – At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you.
> Please, show me where is says anything along the lines of "pray to Mary to pray for you". Why would you do that? Do you think Mary hears prayers? She was a HUMAN.
> "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God..."
> 
> (Exodus 20:4-5)



Did you ever ask for another Christian to pray for you...This is that with another wrinkle.  IT IS NOT A RITE OF THE CHURCH TO PRAY TO THE DEAD and it is only to have their intersession with God.  not to do anything themself.  Again the average Christian likely never does this...beyond the very occassional Litany to the Saints.  

We do not worship statues or craven images...we give due and apropriate respect the the one they represent.  Just as you might at the tombstone of a dead loved one.  

Truely people! Does Starman blasphem God by his Abraham quote or by his rhetoric about Abraham?  No! He uses a human example of faith to make a bigger point about God.  That is the true point of Mary.


----------



## camily

libby said:


> Camily, Elizabeth said "who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me."  Mary was special because Jesus was Divine.  The more in awe of His Divinity you are, the more in awe of her motherhood you would be.  The less impressed with His Divinity, the less you will think of her motherhood.
> 
> Magnify- other than trying to give me an lesson in Greek, I don't see how you answered my question. _ Inspired Scripture _tells us that Mary's soul _magnifies the Lord._  She makes Him more visible.  How?  As in the wedding at Cana, she says, "do whatever He tells you".
> 
> Also, as far as "putting her in her place" in assorted passages, I've answered that in other places, so I'll only sum it up here.
> You are certainly correct in that doing the Will of the Father is what makes us mothers/brothers/family of Jesus.  He was not saying what she didn't do, just pointing out where to place the emphasis.
> As a matter of fact, if doing the Will of God is what makes us His mother/brother, etc, then she must have, quite literally, done the Will of God because she was , quite literally, the mother of God [the Son]



No one is saying she wasn't extremely exceptional. Amazing even. Please don't assume to know the level of "impress" He has on me. I don't even like that word. Why should God try to impress me? It should be the other way around. I should do all I can for Him. 
My pastor magnifies the Lord. I think it's all of our goal to magnify the Lord. I don't really find the significance in Mary saying it. Sure, it's a great thing and something we a strive for but it doesn't mean she was divine herself. She was great and must have been an incredible child (as we know she was a child, 14 maybe) but I will not now nor ever ask her to pray for me by praying to her. I will pray for myself and ask ALIVE Christians to pray for me as well, in Jesus' name. I was raised catholic so believe me, I know how important she is to them. I am now a baptist.


----------



## camily

Im_Me said:


> Did you ever ask for another Christian to pray for you...This is that with another wrinkle.  IT IS NOT A RITE OF THE CHURCH TO PRAY TO THE DEAD and it is only to have their intersession with God.  not to do anything themself.  Again the average Christian likely never does this...beyond the very occassional Litany to the Saints.
> 
> We do not worship statues or craven images...we give due and apropriate respect the the one they represent.  Just as you might at the tombstone of a dead loved one.
> 
> Truely people! Does Starman blasphem God by his Abraham quote or by his rhetoric about Abraham?  No! He uses a human example of faith to make a bigger point about God.  That is the true point of Mary.



I don't understand "intersession". I thought was semester breaks in college? I'm not trying to be facetious. Do you mean like a go between?


----------



## camily

Im_Me said:


> Did you ever ask for another Christian to pray for you...This is that with another wrinkle.  IT IS NOT A RITE OF THE CHURCH TO PRAY TO THE DEAD and it is only to have their intersession with God.  not to do anything themself.  Again the average Christian likely never does this...beyond the very occassional Litany to the Saints.
> 
> We do not worship statues or craven images...we give due and apropriate respect the the one they represent.  Just as you might at the tombstone of a dead loved one.
> 
> Truely people! Does Starman blasphem God by his Abraham quote or by his rhetoric about Abraham?  No! He uses a human example of faith to make a bigger point about God.  That is the true point of Mary.



I feel we are on our own when it comes to salvation and getting into Heaven. No one can pray me in or let me use some of their goodness to get in. I accept God's salvation through Jesus, end of story. Yes, I have had others ALIVE pray for me, but my dead relatives, no. They can't hear me. They wouldn't want to hear me. They are doing the same thing Mary is, praising God. Not waiting for me to ask that my earthly needs to be met.


----------



## libby

camily said:


> No one is saying she wasn't extremely exceptional. Amazing even. Please don't assume to know the level of "impress" He has on me. I don't even like that word. Why should God try to impress me? It should be the other way around. I should do all I can for Him.
> My pastor magnifies the Lord. I think it's all of our goal to magnify the Lord. I don't really find the significance in Mary saying it. Sure, it's a great thing and something we a strive for but it doesn't mean she was divine herself. She was great and must have been an incredible child (as we know she was a child, 14 maybe) but I will not now nor ever ask her to pray for me by praying to her. I will pray for myself and ask ALIVE Christians to pray for me as well, in Jesus' name. I was raised catholic so believe me, I know how important she is to them. I am now a baptist.



Good golly, I'm not presuming to know how "impressed" you are.  You is collective as well as singular and that's how I was using it.
Your pastor may teach you about God, but_ inspired Scripture _tells us that Mary's soul magnifies Him.  The moon reflects the light of the sun, but without the sun is it total darkness.  So it is with Mary, with the Son she is nothing, but because of her unique position she reflects all that He wants to accomplish in us.  If you think we are priviliged to be called sons and daughters of the Most High, how much more so the first person in all of humanity to know that the Lord had come!  
You do not understand Catholic teaching about Mary, _that is a fact.  _  You chastise me when you think I "assume" to understand your faith (though I hope I've cleared that up) but you are doing exactly that when you say we put Mary above Jesus.  She is not divine and the Church has NEVER, EVER suggested that she is.
You say you ask "alive" Christians to pray for you. 
Well, if you do not believe in life after death, what are you hoping for?  Those who have died in Christ are more alive than anyone here on earth.  Heaven is the perfection of life on earth.  We do not lose the love, faith and friendships we have had, but in fact we love more, have more faith and more friends when we are there.


----------



## libby

camily said:


> I don't understand "intersession". I thought was semester breaks in college? I'm not trying to be facetious. Do you mean like a go between?



You said you were raised Catholic.  If you ever recited  the "Hail Mary" you would know that we say, "pray for us, sinners, now and at the hour of our death".

That is intercession, asking them to pray for you.  So to be clear, that is not instead of praying to Jesus, it is in addition to.


----------



## Im_Me

camily said:


> I feel we are on our own when it comes to salvation and getting into Heaven. No one can pray me in or let me use some of their goodness to get in. I accept God's salvation through Jesus, end of story. Yes, I have had others ALIVE pray for me, but my dead relatives, no. They can't hear me. They wouldn't want to hear me. They are doing the same thing Mary is, praising God. Not waiting for me to ask that my earthly needs to be met.



Maybe they are doing other things..maybe they are listening.  I don't know..I'd like to think my dad is looking down at his first male progeny with pride, but if not is does my heart good that I know he would be proud.  (btw I remember my dad I don't pray to him.)  

I have honestly spent more time on these issues with you guys on this board than in the last several years as a Catholic.. We practice a Christian Catholic faith of the Mass and service to our communities.  We hold bible studies..We grow in our spiritual relationship with the Lord...We are not Mary worshippers or worshippers of our dead.  We worship and follow God alone in the Trinity.


----------



## camily

libby said:


> You said you were raised Catholic.  If you ever recited  the "Hail Mary" you would know that we say, "pray for us, sinners, now and at the hour of our death".
> 
> That is intercession, asking them to pray for you.  So to be clear, that is not instead of praying to Jesus, *it is in addition to*.



Herein lies the problem. You are not to pray to anyone other that God in Jesus' name.


----------



## camily

Im_Me said:


> Maybe they are doing other things..maybe they are listening.  I don't know..I'd like to think my dad is looking down at his first male progeny with pride, but if not is does my heart good that I know he would be proud.  (btw I remember my dad I don't pray to him.)
> 
> I have honestly spent more time on these issues with you guys on this board than in the last several years as a Catholic.. We practice a Christian Catholic faith of the Mass and service to our communities.  We hold bible studies..We grow in our spiritual relationship with the Lord...We are not Mary worshippers or worshippers of our dead.  We worship and follow God alone in the Trinity.



I don't think they're listening. It doesn't say that in the Bible. Why would they care about earth when they are standing the the presence of God and looking at the face of Jesus?


----------



## Im_Me

camily said:


> I don't think they're listening. It doesn't say that in the Bible. Why would they care about earth when they are standing the the presence of God and looking at the face of Jesus?



That's fine and wonderful.  Really.  I don't know what I think.  But if praying for the dead is a waste of time...I haven't wasted a lot of it...


----------



## Starman3000m

Im_Me said:


> Maybe they are doing other things..maybe they are listening.  I don't know..I'd like to think my dad is looking down at his first male progeny with pride, but if not is does my heart good that I know he would be proud.  (btw I remember my dad I don't pray to him.)
> 
> I have honestly spent more time on these issues with you guys on this board than in the last several years as a Catholic.. We practice a Christian Catholic faith of the Mass and service to our communities.  We hold bible studies..We grow in our spiritual relationship with the Lord...We are not Mary worshippers or worshippers of our dead.  We worship and follow God alone in the Trinity.



Hi Im_Me


Please do not be offended in my questions here. If I recall, you stated on another thread that you are a Born-Again Christian? Was that you who wrote that?

If so, I have heard of that movement within the RCC but still wonder why one would retain the religious doctrines that Jesus spoke against and that the RCC is so heavily involved in.

Do you attend a Mass and still believe the RCC teachings that the Eucharist is the literal transforming of bread and wine into Jesus' flesh and Blood?

Do you confess your sins to a priest or directly to God through Christ?


----------



## libby

camily said:


> I don't think they're listening. It doesn't say that in the Bible. Why would they care about earth when they are standing the the presence of God and looking at the face of Jesus?



Because God cares about the souls on earth, that's why they care!


----------



## camily

libby said:


> Because God cares about the souls on earth, that's why they care!



Is that biblical?


----------



## Im_Me

Starman3000m said:


> Hi Im_Me
> 
> 
> Please do not be offended in my questions here. If I recall, you stated on another thread that you are a Born-Again Christian? Was that you who wrote that?
> 
> If so, I have heard of that movement within the RCC but still wonder why one would retain the religious doctrines that Jesus spoke against and that the RCC is so heavily involved in.
> 
> Do you attend a Mass and still believe the RCC teachings that the Eucharist is the literal transforming of bread and wine into Jesus' flesh and Blood?
> 
> Do you confess your sins to a priest or directly to God through Christ?



I am a born and bred Catholic, daughter of an Italian RC and a converted protestant mother.  Although I was raised in the church I spent time with  other denominations as a child...So maybe I'm predisposed to combining all the best of the religions in my own reverent and respectful way...As an adult I've worshipped with BAC, Charismatics, Fundamentalists, Protestants,  Episcopalians and Lutherans..I praise the Lord with others that praise Him.  I believe what I believe where ever I am.

I admire my priest as a wonderful Christian (which he is personally, not through his “station”) and I discuss my sins with him.  I also examine my own conscience and talk to God for forgiveness of my sins. 

I have read some and reflected a lot on the Eucharist.  The language of the Church is very confusing with words like Accident, substance and Sacrifice being used in many non-dictionary ways.  The Eucharist does not become bone and plasma---(that is where the church uses the terms “accident” and “substance”); we are not cannibals by eating it…but it is not just a mid-mass snack either… The “host” is changed in a fundamental way…not only by the prayers of the priest but by the “Faithful gathering in His name”.  While I don’t know if I take this ritual right.. I think I do what is right for me --- it forces me to meditate weekly on what Jesus went through in the Crucifixion and why and what it means (Salvation) and in that it renews my faith on a regular basis.  

I’m proud of the Catholic Church and our stand on the rights of the un-born…I appreciate that as a combined force for God we can do much good for the world.  I am proud of my parish…Our members have been instrumental in establishing ecumenical missions to aid the homeless and needy.. We support our brothers and sister in other lands  (we have financed building homes in Nicaragua for many that lived in lean-tos,  We feed the hungry through support of projects like Project Peanutbutter) .  We helped many victims of the hurricanes, directly and financially.. We have reached out to Muslims practicing in Calvert County to foster peace and understanding.  

We practice and live our faith every day.  We are stronger for working and Praising together


----------



## libby

camily said:


> Is that biblical?



You're kidding, right?  

Souls in Heaven are in Union with God.
God cares about the souls on earth.
Souls in Heaven care about souls on earth.


----------



## Starman3000m

Im_Me said:


> I am a born and bred Catholic, daughter of an Italian RC and a converted protestant mother.  Although I was raised in the church I spent time with  other denominations as a child...So maybe I'm predisposed to combining all the best of the religions in my own reverent and respectful way...As an adult I've worshipped with BAC, Charismatics, Fundamentalists, Protestants,  Episcopalians and Lutherans..I praise the Lord with others that praise Him.  I believe what I believe where ever I am.
> 
> I admire my priest as a wonderful Christian (which he is personally, not through his “station”) and I discuss my sins with him.  I also examine my own conscience and talk to God for forgiveness of my sins.
> 
> I have read some and reflected a lot on the Eucharist.  The language of the Church is very confusing with words like Accident, substance and Sacrifice being used in many non-dictionary ways.  The Eucharist does not become bone and plasma---(that is where the church uses the terms “accident” and “substance”); we are not cannibals by eating it…but it is not just a mid-mass snack either… The “host” is changed in a fundamental way…not only by the prayers of the priest but by the “Faithful gathering in His name”.  While I don’t know if I take this ritual right.. I think I do what is right for me --- it forces me to meditate weekly on what Jesus went through in the Crucifixion and why and what it means (Salvation) and in that it renews my faith on a regular basis.
> 
> I’m proud of the Catholic Church and our stand on the rights of the un-born…I appreciate that as a combined force for God we can do much good for the world.  I am proud of my parish…Our members have been instrumental in establishing ecumenical missions to aid the homeless and needy.. We support our brothers and sister in other lands  (we have financed building homes in Nicaragua for many that lived in lean-tos,  We feed the hungry through support of projects like Project Peanutbutter) .  We helped many victims of the hurricanes, directly and financially.. We have reached out to Muslims practicing in Calvert County to foster peace and understanding.
> 
> We practice and live our faith every day.  We are stronger for working and Praising together



So, you do not consider yourself born again?


----------



## Im_Me

Starman3000m said:


> So, you do not consider yourself born again?



A long time ago I was at a meeting of Born Again Christians.  They asked if I accepted Jesus as my Savior-and I said yes.  I was not facetious... to the degree I could I did.   Based on that they said I was surely saved.   After this meeting I went off to college.  I stayed very active in practicing religion for several years, but then fell away from my practice for a long time.   

I believe through Faith I am saved…Not because I verbally accepted Him at that meeting, but because I always had that faith in my heart.   Quite honestly the degree (vigor) of my faith has varied through my life.   I always pray.  Sometimes I feel my prayers going directly off to the Lord.  Sometimes I pray to feel that way again.  

By the same token as you ask about our belief of the power of Baptism; are BAC Christians saved just by their act acceptance, -even if they go away from there and act in an un-Christianly way?  I agree that if they are genuine in their acceptance, they will want to act Christianly; but I understand the tendency to either fall away due to other concerns with living life or to become complacent.  Life events (the death of someone we love or other misfortunes) and also drive us away.  

I am a Christian and Catholic.  I am active in my church community.  I have many Catholic friends.  When we speak of our religion, we speak of the Lord primarily.  Yes we honor, though don’t worship, Mary.  Yes I say the Rosary once or twice a year and yes some say them more.  That’s up to them.  No one coerces them; but in the official Mass text we only pray to the Lord.  (In an effort of complete disclosure: In one of the Liturgies (mass texts) there is a very short Litany where we ask certain saints to pray for us, but that is not the most common form used.)


----------



## Starman3000m

Im_Me said:


> A long time ago I was at a meeting of Born Again Christians.  They asked if I accepted Jesus as my Savior-and I said yes.  I was not facetious... to the degree I could I did.   Based on that they said I was surely saved.   After this meeting I went off to college.  I stayed very active in practicing religion for several years, but then fell away from my practice for a long time.
> 
> I believe through Faith I am saved…Not because I verbally accepted Him at that meeting, but because I always had that faith in my heart.   Quite honestly the degree (vigor) of my faith has varied through my life.   I always pray.  Sometimes I feel my prayers going directly off to the Lord.  Sometimes I pray to feel that way again.
> 
> By the same token as you ask about our belief of the power of Baptism; are BAC Christians saved just by their act acceptance, -even if they go away from there and act in an un-Christianly way?  I agree that if they are genuine in their acceptance, they will want to act Christianly; but I understand the tendency to either fall away due to other concerns with living life or to become complacent.  Life events (the death of someone we love or other misfortunes) and also drive us away.
> 
> I am a Christian and Catholic.  I am active in my church community.  I have many Catholic friends.  When we speak of our religion, we speak of the Lord primarily.  Yes we honor, though don’t worship, Mary.  Yes I say the Rosary once or twice a year and yes some say them more.  That’s up to them.  No one coerces them; but in the official Mass text we only pray to the Lord.  (In an effort of complete disclosure: In one of the Liturgies (mass texts) there is a very short Litany where we ask certain saints to pray for us, but that is not the most common form used.)



Thank you for your open and honest response. I think the best explanation of our relationship with Christ is much how the Apostle Paul explained it through his writings.

As a born again believer, a person is indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God who gives us a spiritual renewing and direct relationship with God whereby we are assured of Salvation through Christ. It is the spiritual conversion that comes through faith in Christ and is the indwelling source of inner strength that helps us be able to turn away from the things that break fellowship with Christ and leads us into submitting to God's guidance. It is only through the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit that is able to effect a notable change in our life, our lifestyle and relationship with God and fellow man.

There is nothing of ourselves that we can give credit to because any good in us is not because of us but because of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It is through the Holy Spirit that a person is able to exmplify the Fruit of The Spirit and His presence dwells in us - for without Christ, we can do nothing.

*Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. 

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. * (John 15:4-5)


----------



## camily

libby said:


> You're kidding, right?
> 
> Souls in Heaven are in Union with God.
> God cares about the souls on earth.
> Souls in Heaven care about souls on earth.



Can you show me a Bible verse that says they care about people on earth because God does? That they see or hear us?


----------



## libby

camily said:


> Can you show me a Bible verse that says they care about people on earth because God does? That they see or hear us?



Let's use the same yardstick for Trinity, Bible and Incarnation.  Show me the exact words in the Bible (which, btw, is not the the Bible)


----------



## camily

libby said:


> Let's use the same yardstick for Trinity, Bible and Incarnation.  Show me the exact words in the Bible (which, btw, is not the the Bible)



The trinity is clearly spoken of. Yes, we made up the word but it is throughout the bible. The bible is the word. We made up the word bible, but clearly the bible is mentioned. Incarnation? You mean like Jesus is God incarnate? That is all over too libby. Where does it even elude to what you are saying? That the dead care about us and see/hear us. We are WITH God, we do not become God when we die. We don't even become angels.


----------



## camily

libby said:


> Let's use the same yardstick for Trinity, Bible and Incarnation.  Show me the exact words in the Bible (which, btw, is not the the Bible)



I can show pleanty of verses that confirm the existence of these. I really don't even get the comparison. You answer questions with questions because you don't have the biblical reference toback it up. If it is not biblical, I don't believe it. Now, I'm not saying it doesn't or can't happen, I'm simply saying the bible does not say it does so I don't go around spouting that it does.


----------



## Im_Me

Starman3000m said:


> Thank you for your open and honest response. I think the best explanation of our relationship with Christ is much how the Apostle Paul explained it through his writings.
> 
> As a born again believer, a person is indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God who gives us a spiritual renewing and direct relationship with God whereby we are assured of Salvation through Christ. It is the spiritual conversion that comes through faith in Christ and is the indwelling source of inner strength that helps us be able to turn away from the things that break fellowship with Christ and leads us into submitting to God's guidance. It is only through the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit that is able to effect a notable change in our life, our lifestyle and relationship with God and fellow man.
> 
> There is nothing of ourselves that we can give credit to because any good in us is not because of us but because of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It is through the Holy Spirit that a person is able to exmplify the Fruit of The Spirit and His presence dwells in us - for without Christ, we can do nothing.
> 
> *Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
> 
> I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. * (John 15:4-5)



But I'm still curious...If a BAC reaches a crisis of faith and goes away from his christianly life...even committing greivous sins...Is he still saved?


----------



## camily

Im_Me said:


> But I'm still curious...If a BAC reaches a crisis of faith and goes away from his christianly life...even committing greivous sins...Is he still saved?


It says once saved always saved but I really can't answer what happens. I guess if he repents yes for sure. Otherwise i can't say what God does. Remember, it also says, 
"Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" (Matthew 7:21-23).


----------



## ItalianScallion

Im_Me said:


> We do not worship statues or craven images...we give due and apropriate respect the the one they represent.  Just as you might at the tombstone of a dead loved one.


Hi MeMe. Would you or Libby please post for me the 10 commandments that the RCC teaches in their words today? I want to see if they have changed since I went there. Thank you my dear.


Im_Me said:


> But I'm still curious...If a BAC reaches a crisis of faith and goes away from his christianly life...even committing greivous sins...Is he still saved?


The Bible teaches that "he who endures to the end will be saved". This is for those who would come and go in the faith and for those who might stick with it for a long time but then renounce it later and not come back. One must come back if they have strayed. 
Even if you asked Christ into your life as a kid and strayed for many years, your salvation is only a prayer away. Just confess (TO GOD), pick up where you left off and continue in the right direction and you're set. 
For those of us who KNOW we got saved and haven't left nor want to leave the "walk", John writes these things so that "we may know we're saved".


----------



## Starman3000m

Im_Me said:


> But I'm still curious...If a BAC reaches a crisis of faith and goes away from his christianly life...even committing greivous sins...Is he still saved?



There is a "peace that surpasses understanding" even in the midst of a personal crisis but there is really not a "crisis of faith" per sé. What I mean by that is that a born again Christian does not doubt the Promises of God through Jesus. One does not want to stray but seeks to grow closer to God through the spiritual renewing brought about by the indwelling Holy Spirit.
However, because we are in sinful flesh there will be sinful tendencies and times when one will stray into thoughts or sins that will break our fellowship with God but not lose our Salvation.

There are many verses in scripture that refer to the struggles that followers of Christ will endure in life - but the Promise of God's indwelling Holy Spirit is what is our source of strength to get us through and get back with God. When we are straying toward sin, it is the Holy Spirit that brings us under immediate conviction and we are called not to quench nor grieve the Holy Spirit - because our body is the temple of God. The Holy Bible says that if a man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him. However, the Bible says when we sin we have an Advocate with the Father - our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. God is our source of strength and the only ability that we can have to live a life that is pleasing to the Lord is to abide under His Guidance through the indwelling Spirit of God. That is the born-again life that we now receive and whereby we are called the Children of God.

Perhaps others can share of their experience, but when we have the Spirit of God living within, we are able to be at peace with God knowing that our relationship with Him is real, that our sins are forgiven once and for all through Christ and that our Salvation is eternally secure and sealed through the Holy Spirit of God. for a born-again believer, there is no doubt that we are Saved by faith in Christ as the Holy Spirit witnesses to our spirit that we Are the children of God.


----------



## libby

camily said:


> I can show pleanty of verses that confirm the existence of these. I really don't even get the comparison. You answer questions with questions because you don't have the biblical reference toback it up. If it is not biblical, I don't believe it. Now, I'm not saying it doesn't or can't happen, I'm simply saying the bible does not say it does so I don't go around spouting that it does.



No, Camily, it is not a lack of Biblical evidence, I am trying to point out your inconsistency.
You reject out-of-hand anything I say with the challenge, "where is that in the Bible".  Your own doctrines are not in the Bible!
I agree that Trinity, Incarnation, etc are just words applied to concepts that are there; but that is the same with the doctrines I'm citing.
I'm not going to reiterate for the umpteenth time the Scriptural support until I get some acknowledgment that "evidence" is all we have on most matters of faith, not "proof".


----------



## hotcoffee

Im_Me said:


> But I'm still curious...If a BAC reaches a crisis of faith and goes away from his christianly life...even committing greivous sins...Is he still saved?



Yes....  just because a child throws a temper tantrum... does a good parent throw the child out?  

Once you become a child of God... you have to answer to God [Jesus will speak for you and remind Him you are a child etc.].  

That doesn't mean there won't be consequences....  You will answer to the Father... [and no I don't think there's a purgatory]... but you are still saved... you still go directly to heaven....


----------



## hotcoffee

camily said:


> "Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord,* have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name*?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" (Matthew 7:21-23).




This is works... not faith....  works will not get you into Heaven....  *Believe in Jesus Christ... that's it...*


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> How do you become a Child of God? (It's really not an attempt at a trick question)



For starters:

*Galatians Chapter 3, verses:*

22: But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23: But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24: Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25: But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26: *For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.*
27: For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29: And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


----------



## toppick08

Faith without works is dead, and when you die.....you stay in the ground until the Second Coming..Thy Kingdom come, thy will, be done.


----------



## toppick08

:shrug:

 Jesus said "I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
♦ Nicodemus, obviously confused by his declaration, then asked "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?"
♦ Jesus then answered "I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
♦ And to reinforce the reality of his point, he then added "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."


----------



## hotcoffee

Nucklesack said:


> How do you become a Child of God? (It's really not an attempt at a trick question)


----------



## Starman3000m

toppick08 said:


> Faith without works is dead, and when you die.....you stay in the ground until the Second Coming..Thy Kingdom come, thy will, be done.



Hi toppicko8. Thanks for your comments. Interesting you mention "Thy Kingdom come"

I invite you to post any comments of what you believe the "Kingdom of God" means at the thread "Defining: Where/What is The Kingdom of God?"

I have asked libby to participate and give the perspective about what the Vatican teaches about the Kingdom of God. Still waiting to hear from her and others on this. Jesus speaks about the Kingdom of God several times.
When you have a chance, I'd be interested in what your thoughts are when you are able to post on that thread.


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> Hi toppicko8. Thanks for your comments. Interesting you mention "Thy Kingdom come"
> 
> I invite you to post any comments of what you believe the "Kingdom of God" means at the thread "Defining: Where/What is The Kingdom of God?"
> 
> I have asked libby to participate and give the perspective about what the Vatican teaches about the Kingdom of God. Still waiting to hear from her and others on this. Jesus speaks about the Kingdom of God several times.
> When you have a chance, I'd be interested in what your thoughts are when you are able to post on that thread.



I haven't looked at that thread.  I have all I can do to keep up with the two I'm participating in.


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> Ok so as long as you have faith, your a children of God?  is that the same as becoming Born Again?
> 
> (sorry i dont know alot about Born Againers, I alwasy took that to mean someone that was Christian, believed in the Bible, but didnt have a denomination that suited them)



Like toppick08 just posted a few minutes ago one must be born again of water and of the Spirit.

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, *Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God*. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. (John 3:5-7)

*Instant Replay:* *Except a man be Born of Water and Of The Spirit*. Jesus didn't say Baptised by water alone; He said Born of Water and of The Spirit

This is the most misunderstood verse as this is pertaining to the biological, physical birth of a human. Being born of water is the natural process of the development of a human embryo within the womb of the mother. It's called the water sack.  This is what differentiates God's human creation from that of the spiritual creation that was cast out of heaven into this earth: Satan and his demonic angels of spiritual wickedness. They cannot be saved. 

(Jude:1:6) And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

John the Baptist even declared that the water baptism he was giving would be superceded by the One who baptizes with Fire; speaking of the baptism of the Holy Spirit and which Christ spoke of that was a requirement for salvation into the Kingdom of God. Plus, the context of the verse is where Jesus speaks of the two births: Birth by Flesh and Birth by Spirit. 

(John 3:5-7) 
5: Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and 
of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 
6: That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 
7: Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 

John speaks of his own water baptism being superceded by the Baptism that Christ gives through the Holy Spirit. 

(Matthew 3:11) I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:


----------



## Starman3000m

hotcoffee said:


>



Amen! 

Jesus said: *"I Am The Way, The Truth and The Life; No Man Cometh Unto The Father But By Me" *(John 14:6)


----------



## Im_Me

ItalianScallion said:


> Hi MeMe. Would you or Libby please post for me the 10 commandments that the RCC teaches in their words today? I want to see if they have changed since I went there. Thank you my dear.
> 
> The Bible teaches that "he who endures to the end will be saved". This is for those who would come and go in the faith and for those who might stick with it for a long time but then renounce it later and not come back. One must come back if they have strayed.
> Even if you asked Christ into your life as a kid and strayed for many years, your salvation is only a prayer away. Just confess (TO GOD), pick up where you left off and continue in the right direction and you're set.
> For those of us who KNOW we got saved and haven't left nor want to leave the "walk", John writes these things so that "we may know we're saved".



Gosh...I was hoping we were getting to discussing religion, but again we are stuck on trying to fix the Catholics.....My bad.  Call me and let me know when we're ready.  

OK Uncle Bill.  Yes we have a different 10 commandments and take out the craven images one...But that does not mean that we have craven images.

We have statues.  I like the statues, I don't worship them.  You don't like them, so don't have them   

I have copied and pasted the following.....It has bible verses.  You like that..You will not like them so you will ignore them..

Do Catholics Worship Statues?


"Catholics worship statues!" People still make this ridiculous claim. Because Catholics have statues in their churches, goes the accusation, they are violating God’s commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to them or serve them" (Ex. 20:4–5); "Alas, this people have sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold" (Ex. 32:31). 

It is right to warn people against the sin of idolatry when they are committing it. But calling Catholics idolaters because they have images of Christ and the saints is based on misunderstanding or ignorance of what the Bible says about the purpose and uses (both good and bad) of statues. 

Anti-Catholic writer Loraine Boettner, in his book Roman Catholicism, makes the blanket statement, "God has forbidden the use of images in worship" (281). Yet if people were to "search the scriptures" (cf. John 5:39), they would find the opposite is true. God forbade the worship of statues, but he did not forbid the religious use of statues. Instead, he actually commanded their use in religious contexts! 


God Said To Make Them



People who oppose religious statuary forget about the many passages where the Lord commands the making of statues. For example: "And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18–20). 

David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18–19). David’s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels. 

Similarly Ezekiel 41:17–18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim."

It goes on and on...I guess I didn't get it all, but what does it matter.  You will turn a blind eye.


----------



## Starman3000m

Im_Me said:


> Gosh...I was hoping we were getting to discussing religion, but again we are stuck on trying to fix the Catholics.....My bad.  Call me and let me know when we're ready.
> 
> OK Uncle Bill.  Yes we have a different 10 commandments and take out the craven images one...But that does not mean that we have craven images.
> 
> We have statues.  I like the statues, I don't worship them.  You don't like them, so don't have them
> 
> I have copied and pasted the following.....It has bible verses.  You like that..You will not like them so you will ignore them..
> 
> Do Catholics Worship Statues?
> 
> 
> "Catholics worship statues!" People still make this ridiculous claim. Because Catholics have statues in their churches, goes the accusation, they are violating God’s commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to them or serve them" (Ex. 20:4–5); "Alas, this people have sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold" (Ex. 32:31).
> 
> It is right to warn people against the sin of idolatry when they are committing it. But calling Catholics idolaters because they have images of Christ and the saints is based on misunderstanding or ignorance of what the Bible says about the purpose and uses (both good and bad) of statues.
> 
> Anti-Catholic writer Loraine Boettner, in his book Roman Catholicism, makes the blanket statement, "God has forbidden the use of images in worship" (281). Yet if people were to "search the scriptures" (cf. John 5:39), they would find the opposite is true. God forbade the worship of statues, but he did not forbid the religious use of statues. Instead, he actually commanded their use in religious contexts!
> 
> 
> God Said To Make Them
> 
> 
> 
> People who oppose religious statuary forget about the many passages where the Lord commands the making of statues. For example: "And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18–20).
> 
> David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18–19). David’s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels.
> 
> Similarly Ezekiel 41:17–18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim."
> 
> It goes on and on...I guess I didn't get it all, but what does it matter.  You will turn a blind eye.



Hmmm...here is what my Bible states (these should be in your Bible too)

Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 26:1)

Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, (Deuteronomy 4:16)

Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee
(Deuteronomy 4:23)

Howbeit they did not hearken, but they did after their former manner. 
So these nations feared the LORD, and served their graven images, both their children, and their children's children: as did their fathers, so do they unto this day. (2 Kings 17:40-41)

Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made: (Isaiah 2:8)

I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.  (Isaiah 42:8)

Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image that is profitable for nothing? (Isaiah 44:10)

Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save. (Isaiah 45:20)

*What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath graven it*; the molten image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth therein, to make dumb idols?
Woe unto him that saith to the wood, Awake; to the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach!  Behold, it is laid over with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all in the midst of it.
But the LORD is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him. (Habakkuk 2:18-20)

there's plenty more...


----------



## Im_Me

*Another view of our*

According to the RSV Bible and Catholic Tradition, the First Commandment is:

(6)I am the LORD your God,...(7)You shall have no other gods before me. (8)You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; (9)you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, (10)but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. [Deut. 5:6-10; RSV]

Verse 7 forbids the worship of other gods, while verses 8-9 forbid the making of graven (carved) images that would be worshipped as gods, i.e. idols. Now worshipping statues with divine honor is one way of worshipping other gods. Verse 7 is a general statement of the First Commandment, while verses 8-9 give a specific case of this Commandment. Verses 9-10 present the punishments and rewards that are associated with these Commandments.

By combining together Deut. 5:6-10 into one Commandment, the Catholic Church is accused of altering the Commandments and covering up God's command forbidding graven images. Suspicions are further fueled when Catholic books only present the general form of the Commandment, Deut. 5:7, in order to expedite memorization. Now one must ask the question: "Does God forbid the making of statues, or does He condemn the worship of statues?" If God condemns the divine worship of statues, then the Catholic division scheme is justified since these images would be "other gods before" Him. A separate Commandment based on Deut. 5:8-10 would be redundant.

Now if God simply forbids the making of graven images, then there are problems elsewhere in the Bible. First, in Exodus 25:18-21, God commands Moses to make two statues of angels (cherubim) for the top of the Ark of the Covenant. Later in Numbers 21:8-9, God commands Moses to make a bronze serpent, so that the people who were bitten by snakes could look upon it and be healed. Now it is true that centuries later King Hezekiah destroyed it; however, this action was done because the people worshipped it as a god (2 Kings 18:4). In the Gospel, Jesus compared Himself to the bronze serpent (John 3:14). Continuing in the Old Testament, the inner sanctuary of the Temple contained two large statues of angels according to 1 Kings 6:23-28. In the following verses, Solomon also had the walls of the Temple decorated with carved images of angels, palm trees and flowers (1 Kings 6:29ff). During the Babylonian Captivity, Ezekiel had a vision from God about the design of the new Temple. According to Ezekiel 41:17-25, this new Temple contained graven images of angels and palm trees. These passages in the Bible indicate that God does not forbid the making of statues. If God truly condemned the making of graven images in the "Second Commandment", then He must have changed His mind later in the Old Testament.

The Catholic Church during the Council of Trent (1545-1563) issued a clear statement concerning images and statues. According to the 25th Session of this General Council:

The images of Christ and of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the saints are to be had and retained particularly in churches, and due honor and veneration are to be given them; not that any divinity or virtue is believed to be in them on account of which they are to be worshipped, or that anything is to be asked of them, or that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of old by the Gentiles, who placed their hopes in idols; but because the honor which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which these images represent; so that we through the images which we kiss...or bend the knee, adore Christ and venerate the saints, whom they represent. [The Canons & Decrees of the Council of Trent (TAN Books, 1978) p. 215-6]

The Church does NOT compel her members to kneel or pray before images. No one is allowed by the Church to pray to images since they have no ears to hear or power to help us. The Church allows for the veneration of images as long as the honor is directed towards Christ and His saints.

On a related issue, some Christians may object to the veneration of images of the saints since they believe that honor should be directed towards God alone and not towards Mary or the saints (1 Tim. 1:17). This objection arises from a confusion between divine honor (adoration - supreme honor proper only for God) and respectful honor proper for men. According to the Bible, the people of God bowed down before King David to show him honor (2 Sam. 24:20; 1 Chron. 29:20; 21:21). Obadiah in 1 Kings 18:7 fell prostrate before Elijah showing him reverence for being a prophet of God. In the Ten Commandments, we are told to honor our mother and father (Deut. 5:16). Even Jesus defended and obeyed this Commandment (Mark 7:9-13; Luke 2:51). At least for Mary, our honor to her is in imitation of Jesus, her Son (1 Cor. 11:1). The Church allows for the veneration of the saints and their images as long as it remains honor proper for men. It is good to honor the saints for their love and trust in God (Matt. 22:31-32; Heb. 11:1-12:1).

The Catholic Church has not altered the Ten Commandments of God. The Church has not dropped the "Second Commandment" as the booklet alleges. The Catholic numbering scheme may differ with the Protestant numbering scheme, but this is due to a difference in tradition and not an alteration of God's Commandments. Unfortunately the Bible is not clear on how to divide or number the Ten Commandments. If this difference is scandalous, it would be interesting to know what the author of the booklet thought of Jesus Christ when He reduced God's Commandments to the Two Great Commandments in Matt. 22:36-40. Finally the Church strictly condemns the adoration (divine worship) of statues, images or even the saints, since this is idolatry and in direct violation of the First Commandment. For Christians a crucifix should not be considered merely as a statue of Jesus hanging on a cross, but as a reminder of the high cost of our salvation as well as His words to us:

"If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." [Mark 8:34]

If I see any of my Catholic friends start to worship their holy statues (since I have never seen do it before) I'll make sure they know it is against the church.  

Now do you guys want to talk about God,  or can you only talk about God by bashing the Catholic Church?


----------



## Starman3000m

I agree. Let's stick to the original topic and continue talking about one's relationship with God through Jesus Christ alone and by the indwelling Holy Spirit through being Born Again.

Highlander began this thread with the intent to label being born again as a "cult"

Is it a cult that is unbiblical, or, is it a process of being regenerated by the process of being Born of the Spirit as Jesus stated?


----------



## Im_Me

Starman3000m said:


> I agree. Let's stick to the original topic and continue talking about one's relationship with God through Jesus Christ alone and by the indwelling Holy Spirit through being Born Again.
> 
> Highlander began this thread with the intent to label being born again as a "cult"
> 
> Is it a cult that is unbiblical, or, is it a process of being regenerated by the process of being Born of the Spirit as Jesus stated?



Let's say we start a new thread on Atonement.


----------



## Starman3000m

Im_Me said:


> Let's say we start a new thread on Atonement.



Well, there's a new thread about defining The Kingdom of God which we cannot enter into unless we are born again, according to Jesus. But I am still waiting for more definitions of what people think is meant by "The Kingdom of God"

Sure, an Atonement Thread would also be a good one - but we have pretty much agreed that *Atonement* is what Jesus did to wash away the sin of mankind. It's available free for the asking.
*However*, Being Born Again is a new life in Christ that brings us to Him through a spiritual relationship and it should be resolved whether it is a cult or a very real aspect of becoming a Child of God.

The truth is that many people involved in organized religions, both Protestant and Catholic denominations, can claim they believe in Jesus but yet not be Born Again.

*But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.* (John 4:23-24)


----------



## ItalianScallion

Starman3000m said:


> Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, *Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God*. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (John 3:5-7)
> This is the most misunderstood verse as this is pertaining to the biological, physical birth of a human. Being born of water is the natural process of the development of a human embryo within the womb of the mother. It's called the water sack.  This is what differentiates God's human creation from that of the spiritual creation that was cast out of heaven into this earth: Satan and his demonic angels of spiritual wickedness. They cannot be saved.


I'm glad you brought up this verse Starman. I have butted heads with a bunch of people on this (KJV Only & Church of Christ mainly). It's just what you said. In fact, Jesus clarifies, in the very next verse, that He is NOT speaking of a water baptism. 


Im_Me said:


> Gosh...I was hoping we were getting to discussing religion, but again we are stuck on trying to fix the Catholics.....My bad.  Call me and let me know when we're ready.
> OK Uncle Bill.  Yes we have a different 10 commandments and take out the craven images one...But that does not mean that we have craven images.
> We have statues.  I like the statues, I don't worship them.  You don't like them, so don't have them.


The red word is graven...
MeMe, I honestly was NOT going to criticize you about the second commandment; I really wasn't. You must be feeling guilty or something but I assure you it was not my intention. I really just wanted to know for my own information. 
I already know what I need to know about the RCC & statues so I don't need any more info on that. 

So, does this mean you love me less now or might put me back on ignore? 
Please let me out once in a while ok?   
All those smilies, just for you!


----------



## Im_Me

Starman3000m said:


> Well, there's a new thread about defining The Kingdom of God which we cannot enter into unless we are born again, according to Jesus. But I am still waiting for more definitions of what people think is meant by "The Kingdom of God"
> 
> Sure, an Atonement Thread would also be a good one - but we have pretty much agreed that *Atonement* is what Jesus did to wash away the sin of mankind. It's available free for the asking.
> *However*, Being Born Again is a new life in Christ that brings us to Him through a spiritual relationship and it should be resolved whether it is a cult or a very real aspect of becoming a Child of God.
> 
> The truth is that many people involved in organized religions, both Protestant and Catholic denominations, can claim they believe in Jesus but yet not be Born Again.
> 
> *But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
> God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.* (John 4:23-24)



OK Let's talk about the Kingdom of God.  I'll consider my thought and study on the Kingdom of God and join in like a team player.


----------



## Im_Me

ItalianScallion said:


> I'm glad you brought up this verse Starman. I have butted heads with a bunch of people on this (KJV Only & Church of Christ mainly). It's just what you said. In fact, Jesus clarifies, in the very next verse, that He is NOT speaking of a water baptism.
> 
> The red word is graven...
> MeMe, I honestly was NOT going to criticize you about the second commandment; I really wasn't. You must be feeling guilty or something but I assure you it was not my intention. I really just wanted to know for my own information.
> I already know what I need to know about the RCC & statues so I don't need any more info on that.
> 
> So, does this mean you love me less now or might put me back on ignore?
> Please let me out once in a while ok?
> All those smilies, just for you!



I'd call that a Freudian slip, but even that wouldn't make sense.  I was on a pretty annoyed tear there.  For the sake of peace I'll go along with that you were 'just asking', but I didn't fall of the turnip truck yesterday.  

(Gosh. You hit three smiley and a cryface just for me)  If you are going to pretend flirt, you have to think of something better to call me.  I'm Itallian and Scotch-Irish....not French.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Im_Me said:


> I'd call that a Freudian slip, but even that wouldn't make sense.  I was on a pretty annoyed tear there.  For the sake of peace I'll go along with that you were 'just asking', but I didn't fall of the turnip truck yesterday.
> (Gosh. You hit three smiley and a cryface just for me)  If you are going to pretend flirt, you have to think of something better to call me.  I'm Itallian and Scotch-Irish....not French.


See? You should've waited me out one more post then you would have saved face.  And who is pretend flirting?  
Now, for your name...I'm Italian (bet you didn't know that) and I know some Italian names but very few Irish and no Scotch ones.
Let's see; Mi Bella McBabe? That's lame...

I ain't got nothin here. TTYS. Ciao McBabe, Te amo!


----------



## Im_Me

ItalianScallion said:


> See? You should've waited me out one more post then you would have saved face.  And who is pretend flirting?
> Now, for your name...I'm Italian (bet you didn't know that) and I know some Italian names but very few Irish and no Scotch ones.
> Let's see; Mi Bella McBabe? That's lame...
> 
> I ain't got nothin here. TTYS. Ciao McBabe, Te amo!



You're right. You got nothing.  Keep working on the name.


----------



## Starman3000m

ItalianScallion said:


> I'm glad you brought up this verse Starman. I have butted heads with a bunch of people on this (KJV Only & Church of Christ mainly). It's just what you said. In fact, Jesus clarifies, in the very next verse, that He is NOT speaking of a water baptism.



Yep. Thanks ItalianScallion.

As mentioned, it is one of the most misunderstood verses - but as we agree Jesus is not speaking of water baptism; He is speaking of the two types of birth: Human childbirth and Regenerative Spiritual Birth through The Holy Spirit that transforms our lives and whereby we become the Children of God. 

This thread was started in an attempt to discredit the concept of "Born Again" and apparently to paint it as being a "cult". However, if Jesus emphasized that a person must be born again before he/she can enter the Kingdom of God, it must be fairly important to know what He was speaking of.

Keep up the good work, my friend.


----------



## baydoll

Im_Me said:


> Baydoll Your Rhetoric is way out of whack with the Church teachings.....
> 
> We do hold Mary in high regard, but not higher than the Trinity.  The official rite of the Church -the Mass-mentions her in one or two lines and that is ALL.  There is nothing of her in the Baptism or Confirmation.
> 
> Most Catholics never say a Rosary..Or at most one or two per year.
> 
> If we pray to her (as in the Hail Mary)...It is only to have her pray for us.  We do not give her any mystical powers of her own.
> 
> I agree that the point of Jesus being here was to save all of us.  He did make a point of "putting Mary in her place" after He was found at the temple as a child and at the wedding at Cana.  But there are places in the Bible where she is revered-  by the angel when her selection as the vessel of Jesus, which the Hail Mary quotes.  Jesus also set up for her to be protected before He went back up to Heaven after the Pentacost...sorry no bible here for references, and I've got to get to work...



Where does it say in Scripture that we are to pray to her at all? I don't know what Bible you are reading but mine says Jesus Himself told us to pray to the Father who is in Heaven, not anybody else. And nowhere in the Bible do we see anybody praying TO a deceased person in heaven or told to pray to a deceased person. Actually we are told NOT to pray or call upon a deceased person which is precisely what your Church teaches, Im_Me. How very telling. 

I think you are thinking of how Jesus committed Mary to the Apostle John. Once again you are reading way too much into those simple passages.


----------



## baydoll

camily said:


> Well, I do drink beer. I don't think that's a sin.  Just not supposed to get drunk.



I agree wholeheartedly.


----------



## baydoll

Im_Me said:


> Baydoll are we practicing Christianity or Bible facts.
> 
> What my one post said was I think that pain in childbirth is a fact of our physiology not original sin.  That was set before Eve.  See also the latest posts the Original sin thread.




Precisely, Im_Me. And according to the Bible, pains in childbearing is the consequences of sin. That's a biblical fact. See Genesis 3:16.

So once again I await your answer in how this Woman in Rev. 12 could be 'Mary' if this woman is definetly having pains during childbearing?


----------



## baydoll

Im_Me said:


> Did you ever ask for another Christian to pray for you...This is that with another wrinkle.  .




Once again you miss an important point: there is a huge difference between asking someone to pray FOR you and actually praying TO that person. And yet again, neither you or libby has answered our question to where in the Bible do we see anyone praying TO a deceased person or anyone telling us to do so. I myself eagerly await all these passages showing us people praying TO deceased persons and all of those passages commanding us to do so. 





> IT IS NOT A RITE OF THE CHURCH TO PRAY TO THE DEAD and it is only to have their intersession with God.  not to do anything themself.  Again the average Christian likely never does this...beyond the very occassional Litany to the Saints.



And yet your popes do this all the time.....



> We do not worship statues or craven images...we give due and apropriate respect the the one they represent.  Just as you might at the tombstone of a dead loved one.



There is a huge difference between statues upon statues of Mary all over this earth and having a plaque at a deceased loved ones grave, Im_Me. Do you pray TO that deceased loved one of yours?


----------



## baydoll

camily said:


> No one is saying she wasn't extremely exceptional. Amazing even. Please don't assume to know the level of "impress" He has on me. I don't even like that word. Why should God try to impress me? It should be the other way around. I should do all I can for Him.
> My pastor magnifies the Lord. I think it's all of our goal to magnify the Lord. I don't really find the significance in Mary saying it. Sure, it's a great thing and something we a strive for but it doesn't mean she was divine herself. She was great and must have been an incredible child (as we know she was a child, 14 maybe) but I will not now nor ever ask her to pray for me by praying to her. *I will pray for myself and ask ALIVE Christians to pray for me as well, in Jesus' name.[/B] I was raised catholic so believe me, I know how important she is to them. I am now a baptist.*


*

Amen! And that's how it should be.*


----------



## camily

hotcoffee said:


> This is works... not faith....  works will not get you into Heaven....  *Believe in Jesus Christ... that's it...*



Have you read any of my posts? I got that part.


----------



## libby

Baydoll, which Bible do you use?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Good golly, I'm not presuming to know how "impressed" you are.  You is collective as well as singular and that's how I was using it.
> Your pastor may teach you about God, but_ inspired Scripture _tells us that Mary's soul magnifies Him.  The moon reflects the light of the sun, but without the sun is it total darkness.  So it is with Mary, with the Son she is nothing, but because of her unique position she reflects all that He wants to accomplish in us.  If you think we are priviliged to be called sons and daughters of the Most High, how much more so the first person in all of humanity to know that the Lord had come!
> You do not understand Catholic teaching about Mary, _that is a fact.  _  You chastise me when you think I "assume" to understand your faith (though I hope I've cleared that up) but you are doing exactly that when you say we put Mary above Jesus.  She is not divine and the Church has NEVER, EVER suggested that she is.
> You say you ask "alive" Christians to pray for you.
> Well, if you do not believe in life after death, what are you hoping for?  Those who have died in Christ are more alive than anyone here on earth.  Heaven is the perfection of life on earth.  We do not lose the love, faith and friendships we have had, but in fact we love more, have more faith and more friends when we are there.



I asked this quite a while ago and yet to hear an answer from you, libby. How do you know your alive deceased loved ones hear your prayers? Aren't they supposed to be in Purgatory? And again, please show us those passages in the bible of all those people praying to their deceased but alive loved ones in heaven or anyone telling us to do so. 

Thank! 

P.S. Us Evangels do believe that those who have departed this world (deceased people) are very much alive in the next one. We used the word dead/departed/deceased to illustrate the fact that these people are no longer HERE with us on earth.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Baydoll, which Bible do you use?




Quite a number of them. Why?

Which one do you use?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> You said you were raised Catholic.  If you ever recited  the "Hail Mary" you would know that we say, "pray for us, sinners, now and at the hour of our death".
> 
> That is intercession, asking them to pray for you.  So to be clear, that is not instead of praying to Jesus, it is in addition to.




Where is this in Scripture?


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by camily
> I don't think they're listening. It doesn't say that in the Bible. Why would they care about earth when they are standing the the presence of God and looking at the face of Jesus?
> 
> Because God cares about the souls on earth, that's why they care!



I think Camily meant where in the Bible does it say deceased people can hear our prayers? 

I'd like to know this as well....


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by camily
> Can you show me a Bible verse that says they care about people on earth because God does? That they see or hear us?
> 
> libby--Let's use the same yardstick for Trinity, Bible and Incarnation. Show me the exact words in the Bible (which, btw, is not the the Bible)



Do you believe in the Trinity the Bible and the Incarnation, libby? Yes or no? Why or why not?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> No, Camily, it is not a lack of Biblical evidence, I am trying to point out your inconsistency.
> You reject out-of-hand anything I say with the challenge, "where is that in the Bible".  Your own doctrines are not in the Bible!
> I agree that Trinity, Incarnation, etc are just words applied to concepts that are there; but that is the same with the doctrines I'm citing.
> ".



If it's the same for your doctrines (such as praying to deceased persons) then the concepts of it should clearly be seen in the Bible. 





> I'm not going to reiterate for the umpteenth time the Scriptural support until I get some acknowledgment that "evidence" is all we have on most matters of faith, not "proof



You have yet to do so, libby. You have not offered one 'proof' from the Bible that we are to pray to deceased people.


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> I asked this quite a while ago and yet to hear an answer from you, libby. How do you know your alive deceased loved ones hear your prayers? Aren't they supposed to be in Purgatory? And again, please show us those passages in the bible of all those people praying to their deceased but alive loved ones in heaven or anyone telling us to do so.
> 
> Thank!
> 
> P.S. Us Evangels do believe that those who have departed this world (deceased people) are very much alive in the next one. We used the word dead/departed/deceased to illustrate the fact that these people are no longer HERE with us on earth.



A few pages back I did answer you with the following.  I am not going to answer any more of your "questions" unless you acknowledge that, while you may not agree with them, some doctrines can be understood from collective passages of Scripture, and not because they are explicitly stated. There are a few other people here who chat with respectful disagreement.  As posted earlier, you accept the Trinity, the Bible and the Incarnation, which are not in Scripture but can be reasoned through Scripture.  If you are going to reject out-of-hand anything and everything I say I will not waste my time.  
Believe it or not, reasonable and faithful people _can_ disagree without being snarky.


----------



## baydoll

hotcoffee said:


> This is works... not faith....  works will not get you into Heaven....  *Believe in Jesus Christ... that's it...*



Hot coffee, even demons believe in Jesus Christ, dear.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> A few pages back I did answer you with the following.  I am not going to answer any more of your "questions" unless you acknowledge that, while you may not agree with them, some doctrines can be understood from collective passages of Scripture, and not because they are explicitly stated. There are a few other people here who chat with respectful disagreement.  As posted earlier, you accept the Trinity, the Bible and the Incarnation, which are not in Scripture but can be reasoned through Scripture.  If you are going to reject out-of-hand anything and everything I say I will not waste my time.
> Believe it or not, reasonable and faithful people _can_ disagree without being snarky.




Once again I see Catholics getting defensive about their beliefs. Why is that, btw? Do you see us getting all huffy and defensive? Nope! Only the Catholics....

Libby, if your Church is what it claims to be, the One True Church and guided by the Holy Spirit, then you should be able to defend it without getting all defensive and going off on hissy fits. IT should be a breeze to defend it. It would stand on its own without any attacks upon it. 

It is not you nor Im_Me I am disagreeing with, dear, it is your Church and its teachings. It claims to be the One True Church. Okay, so I am questioning that.....are you now telling me that you are going to refuse to answer any of those questions concerning your Church? What does that say about you and your Church, libby? Are you that unsure of your Church that you refuse to answer our questions about it honestly and sincerely? Are you that insecure of your religion?


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> Quite a number of them. Why?
> 
> Which one do you use?



Because the original KJV included the books Protestants now call the Apocrypha.  Since 1611 Protestants have taken these out so it is no longer in the KJV.  There are other denominations that use these books as well, some consider them canon, others consider them useful but not inspired.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Because the original KJV included the books Protestants now call the Apocrypha.  Since 1611 Protestants have taken these out so it is no longer in the KJV.  There are other denominations that use these books as well, some consider them canon, others consider them useful but not inspired.



What the heck does that have to do with praying to dead people and Mary?

Also, I noticed you neglected to answer any of my questions in my previous posts but instead opened up a whole nother can of worms....

Deflecting much, dear?

Which bible do you use, libby?


----------



## baydoll

> A few pages back I did answer you with the following. I am not going to answer any more of your "questions" unless you acknowledge that, while you may not agree with them, some doctrines can be understood from collective passages of Scripture, and not because they are explicitly stated.



The Trinity, the Bible and the Incarnation is explicitly stated in Scripture, libby. The same should be said of the teachings of Mary (especially her assumed sinlessness, and assumption) and prayers to dead people as well as all those other beliefs of your Church. 

You have yet to show us any of these 'proofs' from the bible.


----------



## camily

baydoll said:


> I think Camily meant where in the Bible does it say deceased people can hear our prayers?
> 
> I'd like to know this as well....



Exactly.


----------



## camily

baydoll said:


> Hot coffee, even demons believe in Jesus Christ, dear.



Satan surely believes in God. He even had conversations with Him. I tell my husband that all the time when he says he believes in God. That is sooooo not enough. Accepting Him as Lord and Savior is the key.


----------



## camily

ItalianScallion said:


> I'm glad you brought up this verse Starman. I have butted heads with a bunch of people on this (KJV Only & Church of Christ mainly). It's just what you said. In fact, Jesus clarifies, in the very next verse, that He is NOT speaking of a water baptism.
> 
> The red word is graven...
> MeMe, I honestly was NOT going to criticize you about the second commandment; I really wasn't. You must be feeling guilty or something but I assure you it was not my intention. I really just wanted to know for my own information.
> I already know what I need to know about the RCC & statues so I don't need any more info on that.
> 
> So, does this mean you love me less now or might put me back on ignore?
> Please let me out once in a while ok?
> All those smilies, just for you!



Do you not feel a water baptism is what God wants if you are physically able?


----------



## baydoll

toppick08 said:


> :shrug:
> 
> Jesus said "I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
> ♦ Nicodemus, obviously confused by his declaration, then asked "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?"
> ♦ Jesus then answered "I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
> ♦ And to reinforce the reality of his point, he then added "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."



Yup! 




> Question: "What is the true gospel?"
> 
> Answer: The true gospel is the good news that God saves sinners. Man is by nature sinful and separated from God with no hope of remedying that situation. But God, by His power, provided the means of man’s redemption in the death, burial and resurrection of the Savior, Jesus Christ.
> 
> The word “gospel” literally means “good news.” But to truly comprehend how good this news is, we must first understand the bad news. As a result of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:6), every part of man—his mind, will, emotions and flesh—have been corrupted by sin. Because of man’s sinful nature, he does not and cannot seek God. He has no desire to come to God and, in fact, his mind is hostile toward God (Romans 8:7). God has declared that man’s sin dooms him to an eternity in hell, separated from God. It is in hell that man pays the penalty of sin against a holy and righteous God. This would be bad news indeed if there were no remedy.
> 
> But in the gospel, God, in His mercy, has provided that remedy, a substitute for us—Jesus Christ—who came to pay the penalty for our sin by His sacrifice on the cross. This is the essence of the gospel which Paul preached to the Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 15:2-4, he explains the three elements of the gospel—the death, burial and resurrection of Christ on our behalf. Our old nature died with Christ on the cross and was buried with Him. Then we were resurrected with Him to a new life (Romans 6:4-8). Paul tells us to “hold firmly” to this true gospel, the only one which saves. Believing in any other gospel is to believe in vain. In Romans 1:16-17, Paul also declares that the true gospel is the “power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes” by which he means that salvation is not achieved by man’s efforts, but by the grace of God through the gift of faith (Ephesians 2:8-9).
> 
> Because of the Gospel, through the power of God, those who believe in Christ (Romans 10:9) are not just saved from hell. We are, in fact, given a completely new nature (2 Corinthians 5:17) with a changed heart and a new desire, will, and attitude that are manifested in good works. This is the fruit the Holy Spirit produces in us by His power. Works are never the means of salvation, but they are the proof of it (Ephesians 2:10). Those who are saved by the power of God will always show the evidence of salvation by a changed life.


----------



## baydoll

camily said:


> Satan surely believes in God. He even had conversations with Him. I tell my husband that all the time when he says he believes in God. That is sooooo not enough. Accepting Him as Lord and Savior is the key.




Amen, camily. Amen.


----------



## Im_Me

baydoll said:


> I asked this quite a while ago and yet to hear an answer from you, libby. How do you know your alive deceased loved ones hear your prayers? Aren't they supposed to be in Purgatory? And again, please show us those passages in the bible of all those people praying to their deceased but alive loved ones in heaven or anyone telling us to do so.
> 
> Thank!
> 
> P.S. Us Evangels do believe that those who have departed this world (deceased people) are very much alive in the next one. We used the word dead/departed/deceased to illustrate the fact that these people are no longer HERE with us on earth.



Here's one where the bones of the dead revived a man..

12-2 KINGS

12-13:21    And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.


----------



## Im_Me

baydoll said:


> Once again I see Catholics getting defensive about their beliefs. Why is that, btw? Do you see us getting all huffy and defensive? Nope! Only the Catholics....
> 
> Libby, if your Church is what it claims to be, the One True Church and guided by the Holy Spirit, then you should be able to defend it without getting all defensive and going off on hissy fits. IT should be a breeze to defend it. It would stand on its own without any attacks upon it.
> 
> It is not you nor Im_Me I am disagreeing with, dear, it is your Church and its teachings. It claims to be the One True Church. Okay, so I am questioning that.....are you now telling me that you are going to refuse to answer any of those questions concerning your Church? What does that say about you and your Church, libby? Are you that unsure of your Church that you refuse to answer our questions about it honestly and sincerely? Are you that insecure of your religion?




Yes I may be getting defensive about my religion...But you do not appear to come at this discussion in a tone of free sharing.  No one I know preaches that we are the one true church.  Your rhetoric also does not reflect our actual practice.  We practice our faith in the Salvation given us by Jesus' birth a bit different than you, but according to you (and with a slight wrinkle to us) , our faith is enough to save us from the fires of Hell.  

My experience of the Catholic Church is of a live,  God loving and active ministry.  My parish works with many other churches to provide ministry.

I'm out of this.  I love God.  I want to talk about God not the Church.


----------



## camily

Im_Me said:


> Here's one where the bones of the dead revived a man..
> 
> 12-2 KINGS
> 
> 12-13:21    And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.



"Even in death the mere presence of Elisha's bodywas sufficient for a miracle. There was no magic in Elisha's bones, but a demonstration of the power of God associated with His servant. This miracle should have reassured Jehoash that God intented to rescue Isreal from the deadly grip of Aramean domination (v.25)."
That is what my bible says in the study section under the verses.

I don't think it has anything to do with Elisha caring about anything after death but is proof of Gods power and how he should have trusted to begin with.


----------



## camily

Im_Me said:


> Yes I may be getting defensive about my religion...But you do not appear to come at this discussion in a tone of free sharing.  No one I know preaches that we are the one true church.  Your rhetoric also does not reflect our actual practice.  We practice our faith in the Salvation given us by *Jesus' birth* a bit different than you, but according to you (and with a slight wrinkle to us) , our faith is enough to save us from the fires of Hell.
> 
> My experience of the Catholic Church is of a live,  God loving and active ministry.  My parish works with many other churches to provide ministry.
> 
> I'm out of this.  I love God.  I want to talk about God not the Church.



Shouldn't that be Jesus' death? He died on the cross for us. Yet, we must still accept Him as Lord and Savior. Two men on the cross with him. One accepted and Jesus told him he would be with Him in paradise that night. The other one didn't.


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> What the heck does that have to do with praying to dead people and Mary?
> 
> Also, I noticed you neglected to answer any of my questions in my previous posts but instead opened up a whole nother can of worms....
> 
> Deflecting much, dear?
> 
> Which bible do you use, libby?



What does it have to do with it?  It has to do with the fact that there are passages in those books, called by some the Apocrypha, that have to do with praying to the dead.  
However, I will not attempt to use books you do not consider inspired.

So you see, it is not another can of worms, it is relevant to the discussion.


----------



## Starman3000m

camily said:


> Do you not feel a water baptism is what God wants if you are physically able?



Hi camily,
Neither ItalianScallion or I are saying that at all. 

Yes, when a person has willingly chosen to repent and give there lives to Jesus Christ as his/her personal Lord and Saviour they will be inclined to partake of the "symbolic" baptism of water immersion and as a public testimony in front of witnesses.

This is part of the personal and public confession of faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, the Son of God and Saviour of mankind.

However, it is not the actual act of "immersion in water" that Jesus spoke of when He stated about being born of water. 

It is important to note that many people undergo "water baptism" only because it is "expected of them to become a member of a denomination" or because they sincerely believe that water baptism is what brings about salvation. That is what has been misunderstood, thus, people go on believing they are "cleansed of their sins" just because they were "baptized in water".

As mentioned, Biblically, it is only symbolic, not required for Salvation, but is something that a born-again individual would want to do and I believe most if not all have done so.


----------



## camily

Starman3000m said:


> Hi camily,
> Neither ItalianScallion or I are saying that at all.
> 
> Yes, when a person has willingly chosen to repent and give there lives to Jesus Christ as his/her personal Lord and Saviour they will be inclined to partake of the "symbolic" baptism of water immersion and as a public testimony in front of witnesses.
> 
> This is part of the personal and public confession of faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, the Son of God and Saviour of mankind.
> 
> However, it is not the actual act of "immersion in water" that Jesus spoke of when He stated about being born of water.
> 
> It is important to note that many people undergo "water baptism" only because it is "expected of them to become a member of a denomination" or because they sincerely believe that water baptism is what brings about salvation. That is what has been misunderstood, thus, people go on believing they are "cleansed of their sins" just because they were "baptized in water".
> 
> As mentioned, Biblically, it is only symbolic, not required for Salvation, but is something that a born-again individual would want to do and I believe most if not all have done so.



This is true, it is not required and I appreciate your response. We should remember that Jesus Himself was baptised and God approved.
Matthew 3:13-17 (New International Version)

The Baptism of Jesus 
 13Then *Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized *by John. 14But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" 
 15Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; *it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness*." Then John consented. 

 16As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17And a voice from heaven said, *"This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."*


----------



## Starman3000m

camily said:


> This is true, it is not required and I appreciate your response. We should remember that Jesus Himself was baptised and God approved.
> Matthew 3:13-17 (New International Version)
> 
> The Baptism of Jesus
> 13Then *Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized *by John. 14But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"
> 15Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; *it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness*." Then John consented.
> 
> 16As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17And a voice from heaven said, *"This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."*



Amen. I am glad you understand that water baptism is symbolic and, yes, we would want to do it as a public confession that our lives have been born, buried and resurrected into a new life through personal faith in Jesus Christ.

Water baptism is only symbolic. However, it is the* "baptism of fire"* that true faith in Jesus gives us and it is the real baptism that we are to receive which supercedes water baptism, as even stated by John the Baptist. 

John concedes that he only baptizes with water to demonstrate one's profession of repentance - but it is Jesus who baptizes with fire! The baptism that Jesus gives is the baptism of the Holy Spirit through which we then become "Born Again" and without that we cannot enter into the Kingdom of God as Jesus proclaimed.

John the Baptist said: "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. (Matthew 3:11)

Jesus said... *Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.* (John 3:3)


----------



## camily

Starman3000m said:


> Amen. I am glad you understand that water baptism is symbolic and, yes, we would want to do it as a public confession that our lives have been born, buried and resurrected into a new life through personal faith in Jesus Christ.
> 
> Water baptism is only symbolic. However, it is the* "baptism of fire"* that true faith in Jesus gives us and it is the real baptism that we are to receive which supercedes water baptism, as even stated by John the Baptist.
> 
> John concedes that he only baptizes with water to demonstrate one's profession of repentance - but it is Jesus who baptizes with fire! The baptism that Jesus gives is the baptism of the Holy Spirit through which we then become "Born Again" and without that we cannot enter into the Kingdom of God as Jesus proclaimed.
> 
> John the Baptist said: "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. (Matthew 3:11)
> 
> Jesus said... *Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.* (John 3:3)



Amen!


----------



## Im_Me

camily said:


> "Even in death the mere presence of Elisha's bodywas sufficient for a miracle. There was no magic in Elisha's bones, but a demonstration of the power of God associated with His servant. This miracle should have reassured Jehoash that God intented to rescue Isreal from the deadly grip of Aramean domination (v.25)."
> That is what my bible says in the study section under the verses.
> 
> I don't think it has anything to do with Elisha caring about anything after death but is proof of Gods power and how he should have trusted to begin with.



BINGO!  We give no power to the saint or the bones..It is Gods power at work..Why do you harp on this ?


----------



## Im_Me

camily said:


> Shouldn't that be Jesus' death? He died on the cross for us. Yet, we must still accept Him as Lord and Savior. Two men on the cross with him. One accepted and Jesus told him he would be with Him in paradise that night. The other one didn't.



Sorry mistyped...I am at work and trying to accomplish something.  (though....Isn't the plan one and the same?  Was He born for anything but to ultimately  die to save our sins?  Let's just keep splitting these hairs rather than talk about our Faith. )


----------



## camily

Im_Me said:


> Here's one where *the bones of the dead revived a man..*
> 12-2 KINGS
> 
> 12-13:21    And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.





Im_Me said:


> Yes I may be getting defensive about my religion...But you do not appear to come at this discussion in a tone of free sharing.  No one I know preaches that we are the one true church.  Your rhetoric also does not reflect our actual practice.  We practice our faith in the Salvation given us by Jesus' birth a bit different than you, but according to you (and with a slight wrinkle to us) , our faith is enough to save us from the fires of Hell.
> 
> My experience of the Catholic Church is of a live,  God loving and active ministry.  My parish works with many other churches to provide ministry.
> 
> I'm out of this.  I love God.  I want to talk about God not the Church.





camily said:


> "Even in death the mere presence of Elisha's bodywas sufficient for a miracle. There was no magic in Elisha's bones, but a demonstration of the power of God associated with His servant. This miracle should have reassured Jehoash that God intented to rescue Isreal from the deadly grip of Aramean domination (v.25)."
> That is what my bible says in the study section under the verses.
> 
> I don't think it has anything to do with Elisha caring about anything after death but is proof of Gods power and how he should have trusted to begin with.





Im_Me said:


> BINGO!  *We give no power to the saint or the bones*..It is Gods power at work..Why do you harp on this ?


----------



## camily

Im_Me said:


> Sorry mistyped...I am at work and trying to accomplish something.  (though....Isn't the plan one and the same?  Was He born for anything but to ultimately  die to save our sins?  Let's just keep splitting these hairs rather than talk about our Faith. )



Gotcha  Happens to me all the time. 
I don't think we've been splitting hairs though. I'm trying to figure out why people pray to Mary at all. Why they think the dead can help them. 
How about this passage stating the complete opposite:
Luke 16:19-31
The Rich Man and Lazarus 
 19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. 
 22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[c] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' 

 25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.' 

 27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' 

 29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' 

 30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' 

 31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "


----------



## Im_Me

camily said:


> Gotcha  Happens to me all the time.
> I don't think we've been splitting hairs though. I'm trying to figure out why people pray to Mary at all. Why they think the dead can help them.
> How about this passage stating the complete opposite:
> Luke 16:19-31
> The Rich Man and Lazarus
> 19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
> 22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[c] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
> 
> 25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'
> 
> 27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
> 
> 29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
> 
> 30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
> 
> 31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "



Well this is a parable...so I won't take the circumstances as direct facts:

1.    It does indicate that souls in Heaven and Hell are directly aware of each other and maybe by suggestion they are aware of people on earth.  

2.  It shows some concern for the living that the Dead soul has (In this case someone in Hell BTW), 

3.  Catholics have repented and listened to Moses and the Prophets...We accept Jesus' Salvation and obey the Ten Commandments.  We just request the saints pray for us, as you (and they) might ask your Christian friends to pray for you:  "I ask the blessed Mary, all the Angels and Saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord Our God.


----------



## ItalianScallion

libby said:


> Because the original KJV included the books Protestants now call the Apocrypha.  Since 1611 Protestants have taken these out so it is no longer in the KJV.


Just one more reason not to use the KJV for any deep study issues. Always use others too or never fail to check others first. The number of translation errors in the original KJV are uncountable because un-enlightened hands got into it at the request of King Jimmy...


camily said:


> Do you not feel a water baptism is what God wants if you are physically able?


Where did I ever say or imply this? 


Im_Me said:


> Here's one where the bones of the dead revived a man..12-2 KINGS
> And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.


Now this is a stretch if I ever heard one. Camily explained this one well, so I won't re-iterate it but you can't even twist this passage to make it agree with RCC doctrines. 
Still thinking of a name for you MeMe. Give me some hints about yourself so I can make up a good one.  
P.S. You need a better one for me than Uncle Bill...


Im_Me said:


> Well this is a parable...so I won't take the circumstances as direct facts:
> 1.    It does indicate that souls in Heaven and Hell are directly aware of each other and maybe by suggestion they are aware of people on earth.
> 2.  It shows some concern for the living that the Dead soul has (In this case someone in Hell BTW).


Luke 16 is a one time event allowed by God to make a point about Hades. People in Heaven are not thinking about their loved ones on earth or in Hades. If they were, it would NOT be Heaven now would it?


----------



## camily

ItalianScallion said:


> Just one more reason not to use the KJV for any deep study issues. Always use others too or never fail to check others first. The number of translation errors in the original KJV are uncountable because un-enlightened hands got into it at the request of King Jimmy...
> 
> Where did I ever say or imply this?
> 
> Now this is a stretch if I ever heard one. Camily explained this one well, so I won't re-iterate it but you can't even twist this passage to make it agree with RCC doctrines.
> Still thinking of a name for you MeMe. Give me some hints about yourself so I can make up a good one.
> P.S. You need a better one for me than Uncle Bill...
> 
> *Luke 16 is a one time event allowed by God to make a point about Hades. People in Heaven are not thinking about their loved ones on earth or in Hades. If they were, it would NOT be Heaven now would it*?



Exactly. And I'd like to add that Abraham represents the people os Isreal and it is a two sided conversation only. Lazarus is not aware of or involved in in any way.


----------



## camily

ItalianScallion said:


> I'm glad you brought up this verse Starman. I have butted heads with a bunch of people on this (KJV Only & Church of Christ mainly). It's just what you said. *In fact, Jesus clarifies, in the very next verse, that He is NOT speaking of a water baptism. *
> The red word is graven...
> MeMe, I honestly was NOT going to criticize you about the second commandment; I really wasn't. You must be feeling guilty or something but I assure you it was not my intention. I really just wanted to know for my own information.
> I already know what I need to know about the RCC & statues so I don't need any more info on that.
> 
> So, does this mean you love me less now or might put me back on ignore?
> Please let me out once in a while ok?
> All those smilies, just for you!





ItalianScallion said:


> Just one more reason not to use the KJV for any deep study issues. Always use others too or never fail to check others first. The number of translation errors in the original KJV are uncountable because un-enlightened hands got into it at the request of King Jimmy...
> 
> Where did I ever say or imply this?
> 
> Now this is a stretch if I ever heard one. Camily explained this one well, so I won't re-iterate it but you can't even twist this passage to make it agree with RCC doctrines.
> Still thinking of a name for you MeMe. Give me some hints about yourself so I can make up a good one.
> P.S. You need a better one for me than Uncle Bill...
> 
> Luke 16 is a one time event allowed by God to make a point about Hades. People in Heaven are not thinking about their loved ones on earth or in Hades. If they were, it would NOT be Heaven now would it?



My bad, I must have misunderstood.


----------



## Starman3000m

Im_Me said:
			
		

> 3. Catholics have repented and listened to Moses and the Prophets...We accept Jesus' Salvation and obey the Ten Commandments. We just request the saints pray for us, as you (and they) might ask your Christian friends to pray for you: "I ask the blessed Mary, all the Angels and Saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord Our God.



Please do not be offended at my question, but this is what puzzles me:

Why don't Catholics believe that they can pray directly to Jesus instead of going round-about asking others to put in a good word on their behalf?

The Bible does not indicate that there are other souls that we pray to get our prayers and petitions presented to God. On the contrary, Jesus said that the Only Way to come to The Father is that we must go through Him
(John 14:6) 

There are two theological problems I see with the RCC teaching of praying to Mary and the Saints to intercede on the behalf of a Catholic:

1.) Apparently, the RCC does not believe Jesus' Words that He is the Only One that must be addressed since it is He that is Alive through the Resurrection and is seated at the right hand of The Glory of God. It is Jesus who will be our Judge. All the others are dead and awaiting their resurrection at Judgment Day.

2.) Praying to other dead individuals opens the opportunity for demonic activity to set in and deceive people. The Bible speaks against such interaction between the living and the dead for that very reason.


----------



## Im_Me

ItalianScallion said:


> Now this is a stretch if I ever heard one. Camily explained this one well, so I won't re-iterate it but you can't even twist this passage to make it agree with RCC doctrines.
> Still thinking of a name for you MeMe. Give me some hints about yourself so I can make up a good one.
> P.S. You need a better one for me than Uncle Bill...
> 
> Luke 16 is a one time event allowed by God to make a point about Hades. People in Heaven are not thinking about their loved ones on earth or in Hades. If they were, it would NOT be Heaven now would it?



Whatever, Whatever, Whatever on the Catholic doctrine.  I am a Catholic and won't change because you guys don't like it!  Apparently we can not move on and talk about other things... 

Why should I call you anything but Uncle Bill?  I think it's appropriate.  Here's a hint about me:  I am a 300 LB, green woman, with an extra nose, and I look GOOD!


----------



## libby

camily said:


> Exactly. And I'd like to add that Abraham represents the people os Isreal and it is a two sided conversation only. Lazarus is not aware of or involved in in any way.



How many times does something have to be told in Scripture for you (collective) to believe it is more than a "one-time event"?  I thought Scriptures were a template for all people for all time.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> How many times does something have to be told in Scripture for you (collective) to believe it is more than a "one-time event"?  I thought Scriptures were a template for all people for all time.



libby, I asked this of Im_Me and am awaiting a response, but I'd like to ask the same of you:

Why don't Catholics believe that they can pray directly to Jesus instead of going round-about asking others to put in a good word on their behalf?

The Bible does not indicate that there are other souls that we pray to get our prayers and petitions presented to God. On the contrary, Jesus said that the Only Way to come to The Father is that we must go through Him
(John 14:6) 

There are two theological problems I see with the RCC teaching of praying to Mary and the Saints to intercede on the behalf of a Catholic:

1.) Apparently, the RCC does not believe Jesus' Words that He is the Only One that must be addressed since it is He that is Alive through the Resurrection and is seated at the right hand of The Glory of God. It is Jesus who will be our Judge. All the others are dead and awaiting their resurrection at Judgment Day.

2.) Praying to other dead individuals opens the opportunity for demonic activity to set in and deceive people. The Bible speaks against such interaction between the living and the dead for that very reason.


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> libby, I asked this of Im_Me and am awaiting a response, but I'd like to ask the same of you:
> 
> Why don't Catholics believe that they can pray directly to Jesus instead of going round-about asking others to put in a good word on their behalf?
> 
> The Bible does not indicate that there are other souls that we pray to get our prayers and petitions presented to God. On the contrary, Jesus said that the Only Way to come to The Father is that we must go through Him
> (John 14:6)
> 
> There are two theological problems I see with the RCC teaching of praying to Mary and the Saints to intercede on the behalf of a Catholic:
> 
> 1.) Apparently, the RCC does not believe Jesus' Words that He is the Only One that must be addressed since it is He that is Alive through the Resurrection and is seated at the right hand of The Glory of God. It is Jesus who will be our Judge. All the others are dead and awaiting their resurrection at Judgment Day.
> 
> 2.) Praying to other dead individuals opens the opportunity for demonic activity to set in and deceive people. The Bible speaks against such interaction between the living and the dead for that very reason.


cc


Jesus is our mediator to the Father, but that does not mean we cannot use others tomediate to Jesus.  (not RCC teaching, just my observation)
We are a _family_ in Jesus Christ, all adopted by God Almighty!  We are a family united by the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ.  Families help each other on the path to holiness


I direct 99.9% of my prayers to Jesus Himself.  When I talk to Mary it is specifically to ask her to help me love Jesus as she did. Devout Catholics will tell you the same.  The saints...well, I believe they are helpful, but personally I don't spend much time with them, with the exception of Guardian Angels who I ask every single day to be with my children to guard and guide them.

I also believe that everyone who is in Heaven is ALIVE!  More alive than us, and certainly not confined by the physical laws of time and space.


----------



## Im_Me

libby said:


> cc
> 
> 
> Jesus is our mediator to the Father, but that does not mean we cannot use others tomediate to Jesus.  (not RCC teaching, just my observation)
> We are a _family_ in Jesus Christ, all adopted by God Almighty!  We are a family united by the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ.  Families help each other on the path to holiness
> 
> 
> I direct 99.9% of my prayers to Jesus Himself.  When I talk to Mary it is specifically to ask her to help me love Jesus as she did. Devout Catholics will tell you the same.  The saints...well, I believe they are helpful, but personally I don't spend much time with them, with the exception of Guardian Angels who I ask every single day to be with my children to guard and guide them.
> 
> I also believe that everyone who is in Heaven is ALIVE!  More alive than us, and certainly not confined by the physical laws of time and space.



Libby,this is a vicious cycle that will not end...We are expending energy that is needed elsewhere.


----------



## hotcoffee

libby said:


> cc
> 
> 
> Jesus is our mediator to the Father, but that does not mean we cannot use others tomediate to Jesus.  (not RCC teaching, just my observation)
> We are a _family_ in Jesus Christ, all adopted by God Almighty!  We are a family united by the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ.  Families help each other on the path to holiness
> 
> 
> I direct 99.9% of my prayers to Jesus Himself.  When I talk to Mary it is specifically to ask her to help me love Jesus as she did. Devout Catholics will tell you the same.  The saints...well, I believe they are helpful, but personally I don't spend much time with them, with the exception of Guardian Angels who I ask every single day to be with my children to guard and guide them.
> 
> I also believe that everyone who is in Heaven is ALIVE!  More alive than us, and certainly not confined by the physical laws of time and space.



I'm sorry Libby... I mean no disrespect... but why do you make it so difficult?  

Jesus loves you so very very much... 

Is it that you know more than He does?  He said for you to bring Him you troubles and He said He would comfort you.  Do you think your troubles are more than He can bare?  He has seen much worse... much much worse... than anything you can bring to Him.  

I just don't understand... why on earth would you feel the need to go to someone else first?


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> cc
> 
> 
> Jesus is our mediator to the Father, but that does not mean we cannot use others tomediate to Jesus.  (not RCC teaching, just my observation)
> We are a _family_ in Jesus Christ, all adopted by God Almighty!  We are a family united by the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ.  Families help each other on the path to holiness



*Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.* (Matthew 11:28)

*I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.*(John 10:9)



> I direct 99.9% of my prayers to Jesus Himself.  When I talk to Mary it is specifically to ask her to help me love Jesus as she did. Devout Catholics will tell you the same.  The saints...well, I believe they are helpful, but personally I don't spend much time with them, with the exception of Guardian Angels who I ask every single day to be with my children to guard and guide them.
> 
> I also believe that everyone who is in Heaven is ALIVE!  More alive than us, and certainly not confined by the physical laws of time and space.



Why not 100% ???

libby, only Jesus is Alive right now through His Resurrection. The resurrection of the dead who take upon themselves a new and glorified body has not happened yet and that includes Mary and Christ's Disciples - according to Revelation 20:5, where it states:

But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

If anything, people who have passed on from this life are in a type of spiritual sleep, unaware of anything at this time, and do not have the cognizant ability of looking down on their loved ones. The example of a dead person in spiritual sleep is given here:

*Luke, Chapter 8, verses:*

49: While he yet spake, there cometh one from the ruler of the synagogue's house, saying to him, Thy daughter is dead; trouble not the Master.
50: But when Jesus heard it, he answered him, saying, Fear not: believe only, and she shall be made whole.
51: And when he came into the house, he suffered no man to go in, save Peter, and James, and John, and the father and the mother of the maiden.
52: And all wept, and bewailed her: but *he said, Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth.*
53: *And they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead.*
54: And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise.
55: And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat.
56: And her parents were astonished: but he charged them that they should tell no man what was done.

That's the way it is with our dearly departed ones who trusted in Christ as Lord and Saviour are in a peaceful rest awaiting the resurrection when they come back to life through His Divine Power that Jesus spoke of:

Jesus said... *I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:* 
(John 11:25)


----------



## ItalianScallion

Im_Me said:


> Whatever, Whatever, Whatever on the Catholic doctrine.
> Why should I call you anything but Uncle Bill?  I think it's appropriate.  Here's a hint about me:  I am a 300 LB, green woman, with an extra nose, and I look GOOD!


You sound like a teenager...whatever, whatever, whatever...BRAT!
Say, could you come over to my house one day next week? I want to cut my grass and I need you to shade me from the hot sun. Interested? 


Im_Me said:


> Libby,this is a vicious cycle that will not end...We are expending energy that is needed elsewhere.


I have to agree with you on this. We all knew we weren't going to change anyones mind but it's good to debate these things. 
And what else would a 300lb, Mrs Hulk, nosey woman expend her energy on?


----------



## libby

Im_Me said:


> Libby,this is a vicious cycle that will not end...We are expending energy that is needed elsewhere.



I know, my friend.  I keep going (although I'm almost out of steam) so that the false witness these guys present about Catholic doctrines can be corrected for_ others _who might be reading the thread.


----------



## hotcoffee

libby said:


> )
> I direct 99.9% of my prayers to Jesus Himself.  When I talk to Mary it is specifically to ask her to help me love Jesus as she did. Devout Catholics will tell you the same.  The saints...well, I believe they are helpful, but personally I don't spend much time with them, with the exception of Guardian Angels who I ask every single day to be with my children to guard and guide them.
> 
> I also believe that everyone who is in Heaven is ALIVE!  More alive than us, and certainly not confined by the physical laws of time and space.



So you *direct* your prayers to Jesus Himself... but you *talk to Mary*....

Why do you think it is that Jesus never prayed to anyone but the Father?  *When He was teaching the disciples to Pray did He say "Our Father, or anyone else who happens to be around..."  *Did he talk to Moses or Elijah?  They came to see Him.... 



IMHO... If you would spend as much learning about the Saviour... the Messiah... the Son of God... as you do defending the catholic church you would be a whole lot more comfortable with *talking to Jesus*....

When Jesus was on earth... He was the perfect man... how could you not totally love him?


----------



## baydoll

Nucklesack said:


> Christian ones may.



So-called Christian ones you mean. Sure, nothing new under that sun.


----------



## baydoll

Originally Posted by baydoll  
I asked this quite a while ago and yet to hear an answer from you, libby. How do you know your alive deceased loved ones hear your prayers? Aren't they supposed to be in Purgatory? And again, please show us those passages in the bible of all those people praying to their deceased but alive loved ones in heaven or anyone telling us to do so. 

Thank! 

P.S. Us Evangels do believe that those who have departed this world (deceased people) are very much alive in the next one. We used the word dead/departed/deceased to illustrate the fact that these people are no longer HERE with us on earth. 



> Here's one where the bones of the dead revived a man..
> 
> 12-2 KINGS
> 
> 12-13:21 And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.



Um you wanna point out where in that passage it says to pray to a departed person, Im_Me?


----------



## baydoll

Im_Me said:


> Yes I may be getting defensive about my religion...But you do not appear to come at this discussion in a tone of free sharing.  No one I know preaches that we are the one true church.  Your rhetoric also does not reflect our actual practice.  We practice our faith in the Salvation given us by Jesus' birth a bit different than you, but according to you (and with a slight wrinkle to us) , our faith is enough to save us from the fires of Hell.
> 
> My experience of the Catholic Church is of a live,  God loving and active ministry.  My parish works with many other churches to provide ministry.
> 
> I'm out of this.  I love God.  I want to talk about God not the Church.



Im_Me, again you take this personal, dear. I am not examing YOU but your CHURCH. Once again, IF your Church really is what it claims to be, that is THE ONE TRUE CHURCH guided by the Holy Spirit, then it should be a cinch to defend it. 

Instead of calmly and maturely and HONESTLY answering our questions regarding your Church, Catholics play the victim card and whine and cry about how mean we are and then threaten to storm off with all their toys.

If you truly love God like you say you do, then you would do everything in your power to make sure you are following God's Will not your own and that would include making VERY sure that Church you are attending ESPECIALLY since it claims to be from God is really FROM God. 

Just a thought, Im_Me.


----------



## baydoll

Im_Me said:


> Well this is a parable...so I won't take the circumstances as direct facts:
> 
> 1.    It does indicate that souls in Heaven and Hell are directly aware of each other and maybe by suggestion they are aware of people on earth.
> 
> 2.  It shows some concern for the living that the Dead soul has (In this case someone in Hell BTW),
> 
> 3.  Catholics have repented and listened to Moses and the Prophets...We accept Jesus' Salvation and obey the Ten Commandments.  We just request the saints pray for us, as you (and they) might ask your Christian friends to pray for you:  "I ask the blessed Mary, all the Angels and Saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord Our God.




Again, where does it say in Scripture for us to pray *TO* departed people, Im_Me? 

And no we do not pray *TO* our Christian friends, dear. We ask them to pray *FOR* us. And they are HERE WITH US ON EARTH not departed fromt his earth. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? 

And also HOW do you know Mary and all those 'saints' can hear you considering how there are like gazillion of Catholics all over this globe praying to them as well?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> What does it have to do with it?  It has to do with the fact that there are passages in those books, called by some the Apocrypha, that have to do with praying to the dead.
> However, I will not attempt to use books you do not consider inspired.
> 
> So you see, it is not another can of worms, it is relevant to the discussion.




Well okay dokey if you insist! 

I know all about that 'passage' from that 'book', libby. For those who do not know it is a passage the Catholics turn to in support of prayers to the dead and found in 2 Macc 12:46:

 "Therefore (Judas Maccabeus) made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." (2 Macc 12:46)

Now what they don't tell you is that these same soldiers had been killed because of their idol worship/ idolatry which is a mortal sin according to libby's Church. 

Okay now the Catholic Church says that those who die in mortal sin go directly to hell. The soldiers Judas Maccabeus prayed for died in mortal sin. AND YET the Catholic Church approves the action of Judas Maccabeus enough to base the doctrines of Purgatory, confession, and indulgences upon it.

With me so far?

Now if the Catholic Church declares that the dead can have sins forgiven and be saved by prayers, indulgences and money based on this passage in this not inspired book, what conclusion does one come to here? According to the Catholic Church,  Judas Maccabeus did the right thing even though those soldiers COMMITTED A MORTAL SIN so it must be possible for those who die in mortal sins to be saved! Even those in HELL can still go to HEAVEN!!  Confusing? You bet! 

You see the can of worms you just opened, libby?


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> Other religions Demons do not believe in Christ.



That's because "those other religions" do not believe in Christ either. 

They can't have their demons claiming that Christ exists now, can they.


----------



## baydoll

Nucklesack said:


> Noope i am not slaming different denominations of Christianity.
> 
> Someone stated :
> 
> 
> My post "Christian ones may" was in response to that.
> 
> Other religions Demons do not believe in Christ.



That's not what I meant.


----------



## baydoll

Starman3000m said:


> That's because "those other religions" do not believe in Christ either.
> 
> They can't have their demons claiming that Christ exists now, can they.




VERY well said.


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> Noope
> 
> but that was kind of the point



OK - so do you believe that demons exist at all? 

If so, which demons; the ones that believe in Christ or the ones that do not?

If not, OK, that's your free-will belief.


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> Well it would be hypocritical of me to say i dont believe in (a) God or Gods, but then believe in Demons
> 
> wouldnt it?
> 
> but to answer you i dont believe in Demons.



So do you go to any "Witchcraft" sites and debate with them that there is no such thing as demons/ white or black magic?

You shouldn't be afraid of them putting a spell on you? LOL


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> I used to have debates on Islam at a different message board. But since SOMD is the primary one i vist anymore, you get the joy of bing blessed with my debates!



OK - but Muslims believe in a god too but as you know, not the Judeao/Christian One.

Why didn't you continue debating Muslims, did they threaten to behead you if you didn't leave?


Well, you're safe with us, Nucklesack, even though you do not believe in any god, I personally enjoy your witty comments and keep praying for you my friend.


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> No, but that was funny (in a twisted way), i really only have time for one anymore.



Well, maybe funny (in a twisted way) but not out of the real possibility of that threat to be proclaimed. Here's some advice - don't ever post cartoons that would be offensive to the Muslim world.

OK Nucklesack  - I see no problem in you being the official resident Atheist as long as you wish. As I said, I enjoy the wit of your comments. 

Deep down I do sense that you are a pretty cool individual and just need a punching bag to release your frustrations against religious ideologies. LOL
Just to let you know, however, that the Jesus you keep punching can take it and not be affected at all. He endured quite alot more than punches by those who didn't believe Him.

BTW - A few questions:

1.) Were you raised as an Atheist or did you turn from belief in God due to a bad experience?

2.) As a professed Atheist, do you ever have the tinge of even a very tiny thought come up now and then that makes you wonder if perhaps there is an existence of God?


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> Nope raised Catholic, after confirmation started questioning first my belief, than all belief.



What was it really that caused you to start questioning what you were being taught?

As for my experience, I was raised believing in God but never really had the concept of who God was or of having a personal relationship with God through Christ. Tried various flavors of denominational religions to see which one was true - almost joined the LDS faith, Mormons! Never denied God's existence, only wondered which or whose God was the one that was/is the True One.




> No, once i came to realize that one belief didnt work for me, none of them made any more sense.  (this is why i state with all the Gods there are to believe in, You and I are pretty close, I just believe in one less than you).  I'm perfectly satisfied with the thought that after others and myself die, we cease to exist in totality.  Religion to me is/was a tool used to teach and explain where we came from (for the people at the time), how to live and act in a society (morals/sins/transgressions) and to describe what happens to us when we die (as a means to strengthen morals and rules, if your bad santa wont bring you any presents).




Understandable. Religious ideologies, rituals, traditions and control over congregants has caused many to remain captive out of the fear imposed upon them by the leaders. For others, like yourself, it has and caused them to turn away altogether.

It wasn't until I started reading the Bible and searching for God on my own that I came to comprehend that organized religions today were still very much like the ones I read about during Jesus' time. Fleecing and controlling their people all in the name of God. However, even with that understanding, I still didn't believe the Authority that Jesus was given to lead us out of religion and into a very real relationship with a God who really has a personal concern and love for mankind. My ties are not with any denomination of an organized religion (non-denominational) .

OK - so you may not believe, but you are still in my prayers my friend.


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> Well okay dokey if you insist!
> 
> I know all about that 'passage' from that 'book', libby. For those who do not know it is a passage the Catholics turn to in support of prayers to the dead and found in 2 Macc 12:46:
> 
> "Therefore (Judas Maccabeus) made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." (2 Macc 12:46)
> 
> Now what they don't tell you is that these same soldiers had been killed because of their idol worship/ idolatry which is a mortal sin according to libby's Church.
> 
> Okay now the Catholic Church says that those who die in mortal sin go directly to hell. The soldiers Judas Maccabeus prayed for died in mortal sin. AND YET the Catholic Church approves the action of Judas Maccabeus enough to base the doctrines of Purgatory, confession, and indulgences upon it.
> 
> With me so far?
> 
> Now if the Catholic Church declares that the dead can have sins forgiven and be saved by prayers, indulgences and money based on this passage in this not inspired book, what conclusion does one come to here? According to the Catholic Church,  Judas Maccabeus did the right thing even though those soldiers COMMITTED A MORTAL SIN so it must be possible for those who die in mortal sins to be saved! Even those in HELL can still go to HEAVEN!!  Confusing? You bet!
> 
> You see the can of worms you just opened, libby?




Another brazen display of biased rhetoric, using a piece of truth to fabricate and perpetuate falsehoods (nay, lies) about the Catholic doctrine that you do not understand.
Judas Maccabeus had no way of knowing if the men would have been in hell.  For someone who claims to know so much about RCC doctrine, surely you would know that while the objective action (idolatry) is sinful, only God knows if a soul_ purposely_ committed the action, and with full consent of the will.  It would be my guess that soldiers at war might have extenuating circumstances based on the stress of their situation, for instance.
Now, if the soldiers were in hell, according to Catholic doctrine, nothing Judas did for them would help because, well Einstein, they are in hell.  And if they are in Heaven they would not be in need of prayers. (connect dot #1 with dot #2) Which brings us to the doctrine of purgatory, which yes, the CC sees this, as well as similar NT Scriptures, as indicative of a state of purification.

from Welcome to Scripture Catholic - Providing Scriptural Evidence for the Teachings of the Catholic Faith

Souls in purgatory have been saved, however they are not yet pure enough to be in the presence of Almighty God.
Matt. 5:26,18:34; Luke 12:58-59 – Jesus teaches us, “Come to terms with your opponent or you will be handed over to the judge and thrown into prison. You will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” The word “opponent” (antidiko) is likely a reference to the devil (see the same word for devil in 1 Pet. 5:8) who is an accuser against man (c.f. Job 1.6-12; Zech. 3.1; Rev. 12.10), and God is the judge. If we have not adequately dealt with satan and sin in this life, we will be held in a temporary state called a prison, and we won’t get out until we have satisfied our entire debt to God. This “prison” is purgatory where we will not get out until the last penny is paid.

Matt. 5:48 - Jesus says, "be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect." We are only made perfect through purification, and in Catholic teaching, this purification, if not completed on earth, is continued in a transitional state we call purgatory. 

Matt. 12:32 – Jesus says, “And anyone who says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but no one who speaks against the Holy Spirit will be forgiven either in this world or in the next.” Jesus thus clearly provides that there is forgiveness after death. The phrase “in the next” (from the Greek “en to mellonti”) generally refers to the afterlife (see, for example, Mark 10.30; Luke 18.30; 20.34-35; Eph. 1.21 for similar language). Forgiveness is not necessary in heaven, and there is no forgiveness in hell. This proves that there is another state after death, and the Church for 2,000 years has called this state purgatory. 

Luke 12:47-48 - when the Master comes (at the end of time), some will receive light or heavy beatings but will live. This state is not heaven or hell, because in heaven there are no beatings, and in hell we will no longer live with the Master. 

Luke 16:19-31 - in this story, we see that the dead rich man is suffering but still feels compassion for his brothers and wants to warn them of his place of suffering. But there is no suffering in heaven or compassion in hell because compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are deprived from God's graces for all eternity. So where is the rich man? He is in purgatory. 

1 Cor. 15:29-30 - Paul mentions people being baptized on behalf of the dead, in the context of atoning for their sins (people are baptized on the dead’s behalf so the dead can be raised). These people cannot be in heaven because they are still with sin, but they also cannot be in hell because their sins can no longer be atoned for. They are in purgatory. These verses directly correspond to 2 Macc. 12:44-45 which also shows specific prayers for the dead, so that they may be forgiven of their sin. 

Phil. 2:10 - every knee bends to Jesus, in heaven, on earth, and "under the earth" which is the realm of the righteous dead, or purgatory. 

2 Tim. 1:16-18 - Onesiphorus is dead but Paul asks for mercy on him “on that day.” Paul’s use of “that day” demonstrates its eschatological usage (see, for example, Rom. 2.5,16; 1 Cor. 1.8; 3.13; 5.5; 2 Cor. 1.14; Phil. 1.6,10; 2.16; 1 Thess. 5.2,4,5,8; 2 Thess. 2.2,3; 2 Tim. 4.8). Of course, there is no need for mercy in heaven, and there is no mercy given in hell. Where is Onesiphorus? He is in purgatory. 

Heb. 12:14 - without holiness no one will see the Lord. We need final sanctification to attain true holiness before God, and this process occurs during our lives and, if not completed during our lives, in the transitional state of purgatory. 

Heb. 12:23 - the spirits of just men who died in godliness are "made" perfect. They do not necessarily arrive perfect. They are made perfect after their death. But those in heaven are already perfect, and those in hell can no longer be made perfect. These spirits are in purgatory. 

1 Peter 3:19; 4:6 - Jesus preached to the spirits in the "prison." These are the righteous souls being purified for the beatific vision. 

Rev. 21:4 - God shall wipe away their tears, and there will be no mourning or pain, but only after the coming of the new heaven and the passing away of the current heaven and earth. Note the elimination of tears and pain only occurs at the end of time. But there is no morning or pain in heaven, and God will not wipe away their tears in hell. These are the souls experiencing purgatory. 

Rev. 21:27 - nothing unclean shall enter heaven. The word “unclean” comes from the Greek word “koinon” which refers to a spiritual corruption. Even the propensity to sin is spiritually corrupt, or considered unclean, and must be purified before entering heaven. It is amazing how many Protestants do not want to believe in purgatory. Purgatory exists because of the mercy of God. If there were no purgatory, this would also likely mean no salvation for most people. God is merciful indeed. 

Luke 23:43 – many Protestants argue that, because Jesus sent the good thief right to heaven, there can be no purgatory. There are several rebuttals. First, when Jesus uses the word "paradise,” He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew "sheol," meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord's resurrection. Second, since there was no punctuation in the original manuscript, Jesus’ statement “I say to you today you will be with me in paradise” does not mean there was a comma after the first word “you.” This means Jesus could have said, “I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise” (meaning, Jesus could have emphasized with exclamation his statement was “today” or “now,” and that some time in the future the good thief would go to heaven). Third, even if the thief went straight to heaven, this does not prove there is no purgatory (those who are fully sanctified in this life – perhaps by a bloody and repentant death – could be ready for admission in to heaven). 

Gen. 50:10; Num. 20:29; Deut. 34:8 - here are some examples of ritual prayer and penitent mourning for the dead for specific periods of time. The Jewish understanding of these practices was that the prayers freed the souls from their painful state of purification, and expedited their journey to God. 

Baruch 3:4 - Baruch asks the Lord to hear the prayers of the dead of Israel. Prayers for the dead are unnecessary in heaven and unnecessary in hell. These dead are in purgatory. 

Zech. 9:11 - God, through the blood of His covenant, will set those free from the waterless pit, a spiritual abode of suffering which the Church calls purgatory


----------



## Starman3000m

Nucklesack said:


> Everyone has to square their beliefs with themselves first.
> 
> When i started questioning religion, mainly, it was a 1+1=3.



That one is a BIG question with most people even in some religions like Islam.

My understanding is that we as humans are comprised of three essential life giving facets:

1.) A Body 
2.) A Soul 
3.) A Spirit 

*And these Three are One.*



> I felt like Religious belief was like shopping at a strip mall.
> 
> You have Target, WalMart, KMart, Sears, JCPenny and Belks (the stores are different religious beliefs).  They all will sell you the same things, different labels, but basically its a pair of jeans.  (though Sears and Kmart does have Craftsman).  Now some people shop at Sears because their parents always did, some shop at Belks because they grew up in SouthernMaryland, and some shop at WalMart because they got tired of KMart. (it maybe convuluted but it makes sense to me )
> 
> I came about the personal realization, that at the end of the day its still a pair of jeans.  And I wear Parachute Pants !



Makes sense to me too Nucklesack! I was doing my shopping around for the best until I found out that I didn't have to go to the religious retail outlets to get my answers - I went straight to the Manufacturer! Quickly learned that I never did have to pay the high mark-up prices of never-ending pleas for money that helped fund the minister's trip to Hawaii with his family on the pretense of a "mission." Nor did I have to continue to help pay for the minister's multi-million dollar home on the hill. And by the way that Gold Mercedes of his.... (I think you get the point.)



> Look it wasnt a "I dont want to go to church anymore" kind of thing.  It really came about due to questioning my (original) belief, and from there it spiraled into Hereticdom whistle.



Gee, I guess if I had shopped where you did, I would have become a heretic too! Here my friend, let's share some popcorn. 



> I have studied other beliefs, some more in depth than others, and feel i'm pretty rounded about whats available (currently).  Faith is not something i have.



Studying is good. Questioning is good. Searching is good. But giving up on your search is throwing in the towel before you find the True Answer you had been looking for. The Answer is still there.



> From a purely secular standpoint, it doesnt make me any better than you, nor you better than me, we're just wired differently.



I agree that we are wired differently, Nucklesack, but I've gotta tell you my friend, you got short-circuited somewhere - just like I had been. LOL

The truth is that I know you are a good guy and the truth is I am no better of a person than you are in the eyes of my Lord. I do pray that you will really get a chance to learn more about who the Real Jesus is.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Another brazen display of biased rhetoric, using a piece of truth to fabricate and perpetuate falsehoods (nay, lies) about the Catholic doctrine that you do not understand.
> Judas Maccabeus had no way of knowing if the men would have been in hell.  For someone who claims to know so much about RCC doctrine, surely you would know that while the objective action (idolatry) is sinful, only God knows if a soul_ purposely_ committed the action, and with full consent of the will.  It would be my guess that soldiers at war might have extenuating circumstances based on the stress of their situation, for instance.
> Now, if the soldiers were in hell, according to Catholic doctrine, nothing Judas did for them would help because, well Einstein, they are in hell.  And if they are in Heaven they would not be in need of prayers. (connect dot #1 with dot #2) Which brings us to the doctrine of purgatory, which yes, the CC sees this, as well as similar NT Scriptures, as indicative of a state of purification.





Oh yeah now that you put it that way, it's clear as mud...

And as for the 'indicative state of purification', Jesus already did that, my friend. There is no need for a 'state' of Purgatory, please read Hebrews 1:3


In fact Purgatory is just another fancy name for HELL.


----------



## baydoll

As for the rest of your post...


http://http://www.gotquestions.org/purgatory.html


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> Oh yeah now that you put it that way, it's clear as mud...
> 
> And as for the 'indicative state of purification', Jesus already did that, my friend. There is no need for a 'state' of Purgatory, please read Hebrews 1:3
> 
> 
> In fact Purgatory is just another fancy name for HELL.



Okay, Baydoll,
I'm gonna let you have the last word; I'm finished with you.  Your forked tongue is no imitation of the Jesus Christ you profess to love.  You have no theological or historical foundation for anything you've said.  You are the beneficiary of 2000 years of Christian history that came before you, and it's clear you've put no thought of your own into the Truth of the Infinitely Holy God.  You like holding hands and singing Kumbaya, and the very liberal, moral relativism that is provided by personal interpretation of Scripture.  Have a ball.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Okay, Baydoll,
> I'm gonna let you have the last word; I'm finished with you.  Your forked tongue is no imitation of the Jesus Christ you profess to love.  You have no theological or historical foundation for anything you've said.  You are the beneficiary of 2000 years of Christian history that came before you, and it's clear you've put no thought of your own into the Truth of the Infinitely Holy God.  You like holding hands and singing Kumbaya, and the very liberal, moral relativism that is provided by personal interpretation of Scripture.  Have a ball.



I speak with a forked tongue and singing Kumbaya with a very liberal moral relativism mindset because I said Purgatory is really HELL and that Jesus purged us from all our sins at the cross so we do not NEED a Purgatory? 

Libby, you are guilty of using the Catholic Apologetic Technique Card Number Four (or whatever number it is...):

When things are not going well in your favor, you can always use the 'Paint Your Opponent as Hateful and Un-Christian-like' Card. And for good measure you can throw in the 'I Am So Much Holier-than-Thou So Therefore I Am Done Speaking With You Card'. 

Good one, libby. 

For those who are reading, I still stand by what I said about Purgatory...it is a lie from the pit of Hell. It IS Hell and don't let anybody tell you differently.


----------



## Im_Me

baydoll said:


> Typical Standard Catholic Apologetic Technique:
> 
> When things are not going well in your favor, you can always use the 'Paint Your Opponent as Hateful and Un-Christian-like' Card. And for good measure you can throw in the 'I Am So Much Holier-than-Thou So Therefore I Am Done Speaking With You Card'.
> 
> Good one, libby.
> 
> For those who are reading, I still stand by what I said about Purgatory...it is a lie from the pit of Hell. It IS Hell and don't let anybody tell you differently.




I agree with you Baydoll.  They taught you well in Moonie school.  Now when they install the warmth and christian kindness chips, You'll seem just like a real christian, instead of a full sized replica.  

P.S.  Now where do I find in in the bible to pat myself on the back and do a victory dance?


----------



## baydoll

Im_Me said:


> I agree with you Baydoll.  They taught you well in Moonie school.  Now when they install the warmth and christian kindness chips, You'll seem just like a real christian, instead of a full sized replica.
> 
> P.S.  Now where do I find in in the bible to pat myself on the back and do a victory dance?



Oh I see you are using the same card as libby...


----------



## baydoll

Im_Me said:


> I agree with you Baydoll.  They taught you well in Moonie school.  Now when they install the warmth and christian kindness chips, You'll seem just like a real christian, instead of a full sized replica.
> 
> P.S.  Now where do I find in in the bible to pat myself on the back and do a victory dance?




So what does Hebrews 1:3 mean, Im_Me?


----------



## baydoll

So once again we see libby and Im_Me not willing to defending their Church  in a calm, rational GROWN-UP manner and instead resorting to calling me names.

How Christ-like is that, libby and Im_Me?


----------



## baydoll

hotcoffee said:


> So you *direct* your prayers to Jesus Himself... but you *talk to Mary*....
> 
> Why do you think it is that Jesus never prayed to anyone but the Father?  *When He was teaching the disciples to Pray did He say "Our Father, or anyone else who happens to be around..."  *Did he talk to Moses or Elijah?  They came to see Him....
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO... If you would spend as much learning about the Saviour... the Messiah... the Son of God... as you do defending the catholic church you would be a whole lot more comfortable with *talking to Jesus*....
> 
> When Jesus was on earth... He was the perfect man... how could you not totally love him?




Indeed and Amen, Hot Coffee. 

Excellent post.


----------



## Starman3000m

baydoll said:


> So once again we see libby and Im_Me not willing to defending their Church  in a calm, rational GROWN-UP manner and instead resorting to calling me names.
> 
> How Christ-like is that, libby and Im_Me?



Don't feel alone baydoll. I've earned the name "Uncle Copy and Paste" because I often post the verse(s) from the Holy Bible that refer to the discussion at hand and to verify that the points being made are not my thoughts  but are what the Bible states. I will give credit to Im_Me as she has apologized for the name calling on that one.

Then, I was told to "go play in traffic" by my dear friend libby. I still love her as a friend but have been asking her if it's OK for me to come in from playing in the traffic yet - still no response. 



Whew! That car sure came pretty close that time!


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> Don't feel alone baydoll. I've earned the name "Uncle Copy and Paste" because I often post the verse(s) from the Holy Bible that refer to the discussion at hand and to verify that the points being made are not my thoughts  but are what the Bible states. I will give credit to Im_Me as she has apologized for the name calling on that one.
> 
> Then, I was told to "go play in traffic" by my dear friend libby. I still love her as a friend but have been asking her if it's OK for me to come in from playing in the traffic yet - still no response.
> 
> 
> 
> Whew! That car sure came pretty close that time!



Are you serious, Starman?  You know very well that my comment was in good fun, and and IT have done your fair share of poking around here.
Uncle Copy and Paste was not a name you got from me, although I did suggest you add some of your own words to the discussion.
If, however, that's how you feel it is best to conduct a Bible study, (copy and paste, I mean) without any reference to historicity or theology, then I guess I will bow out. (some around here will say "bowing out" is equivalent of a Catholic hissy fit, they can't make the distinction) Don't suggest that I have not provided Scriptures, though; they have been plentiful, whether you agree with me or not.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Are you serious, Starman?  You know very well that my comment was in good fun, and and IT have done your fair share of poking around here.
> Uncle Copy and Paste was not a name you got from me, although I did suggest you add some of your own words to the discussion.
> If, however, that's how you feel it is best to conduct a Bible study, (copy and paste, I mean) without any reference to historicity or theology, then I guess I will bow out. (some around here will say "bowing out" is equivalent of a Catholic hissy fit, they can't make the distinction) Don't suggest that I have not provided Scriptures, though; they have been plentiful, whether you agree with me or not.



C'mon libby - Remember I chuckled about you telling me to go play in traffic. 

You told me that your dad used to say that whenever he got "fed up".
I asked what happened then but you never said. As far as the Copy and Paste, it takes place of us being together in person where we can look up scripture that verifies a certain point and then be able to read it out loud or let someone know where to locate that specific verse so that they can know you aren't just making something up and/or taking it out of context.

I am sorry, libby, but each time you provided scripture, it was based on the RCC supplemental teachings that sure enough had Bible verses but that were taken out of context in order to support the Vatican's take on what they wanted you to be told. That, my friend is twisting scripture and making God's Word appear to say something it really doesn't.

Many large organized religions like the Mormon Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, and even some Protestant and Pentecostal churches have done exactly the same thing - take verses out of context and built a religion around a misinterpreted scripture which results in an heretical doctrine.

The RCC is not the only one guilty of misapplying the Truth of God's Word, libby, and I am sorry if this hard truth doesn't sit well with you but I am in agreement with the others in that you argue more to defend the Vatican's teachings more than your faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.

I know you have been helped graciously by the Catholic Church as you have told us but the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses do the same for their followers and many stay there because of the generosity. Sorry, but generosities can sometimes require obligations and allegiance to the one who doles out the help. That is not true generosity because there are strings attached before you can receive help.

One final note to you, my dear libby, if it is your desire to walk away:

The Vatican believes it has sole authority on God's Word, and even gives the pope title of "Holy Father". That in itself should send up a big red flag to you libby but if your eyes are blinded to the Truth there is no more I or anyone else can warn you about regarding the errors of the RCC.

I would suggest you read some New Testament Gospels prayerfully on your own and in context. Asking God to help you understand what the true meaning is and that the Holy Spirit of God would give you wisdom in reading.

I will have you and your family in prayers and still love you as a friend.


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> C'mon libby - Remember I chuckled about you telling me to go play in traffic.
> 
> You told me that your dad used to say that whenever he got "fed up".
> I asked what happened then but you never said. As far as the Copy and Paste, it takes place of us being together in person where we can look up scripture that verifies a certain point and then be able to read it out loud or let someone know where to locate that specific verse so that they can know you aren't just making something up and/or taking it out of context.
> 
> I am sorry, libby, but each time you provided scripture, it was based on the RCC supplemental teachings that sure enough had Bible verses but that were taken out of context in order to support the Vatican's take on what they wanted you to be told. That, my friend is twisting scripture and making God's Word appear to say something it really doesn't.
> 
> Many large organized religions like the Mormon Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, and even some Protestant and Pentecostal churches have done exactly the same thing - take verses out of context and built a religion around a misinterpreted scripture which results in an heretical doctrine.
> 
> The RCC is not the only one guilty of misapplying the Truth of God's Word, libby, and I am sorry if this hard truth doesn't sit well with you but I am in agreement with the others in that you argue more to defend the Vatican's teachings more than your faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
> 
> I know you have been helped graciously by the Catholic Church as you have told us but the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses do the same for their followers and many stay there because of the generosity. Sorry, but generosities can sometimes require obligations and allegiance to the one who doles out the help. That is not true generosity because there are strings attached before you can receive help.
> 
> One final note to you, my dear libby, if it is your desire to walk away:
> 
> The Vatican believes it has sole authority on God's Word, and even gives the pope title of "Holy Father". That in itself should send up a big red flag to you libby but if your eyes are blinded to the Truth there is no more I or anyone else can warn you about regarding the errors of the RCC.
> 
> I would suggest you read some New Testament Gospels prayerfully on your own and in context. Asking God to help you understand what the true meaning is and that the Holy Spirit of God would give you wisdom in reading.
> 
> I will have you and your family in prayers and still love you as a friend.



Well, this is clearly the end of this thread.  

I have read the Gospels, and as for spending time in prayer, I doubt very many people can say they actually pray more than I do.  Pray without ceasing, I take that very seriously.  I thank God every morning, noon and night for the blessings He has so generously given me.  All day every day I ask for His protection from spiritual and physical dangers to my husband, my children and myself.  Every single time I bring my children somewhere, be it softball, football, ballet, it doesn't matter, I remind them to pray (and I pray too) a quick prayer for His Holy guidance and protection.  
Daily, hourly, minute by minute I ask Him to reveal Himself to me, and I try to conduct myself in a way that will be pleasing to Him, even on an anonymous internet forum.  I have been seriously challenged this week to hold my tongue in a way that I have never had to in my adult life.  
It is through this constant praying that I am certain that what-is-now-called- the Catholic Church is the catholic (universal) church of the Apostles.  It is the church, which is a family in Him, that Jesus Christ established here to bring all peoples to Himself.
I'm sure some are sick of hearing me say this, but it must be repeated.  Never have I stated that someone must be Catholic, and neither does the church teach that (we've gone over that before).  People on honest journeys can come to different conclusions, and I believe that they can very well be saved.  Only the Lord Himself knows the hearts of men and how they arrive at their particular state in life.  It is for us to reach out and share the hope we have, hope in a God who loves each person so much that He died so that we might live.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Well, this is clearly the end of this thread.
> ...
> Never have I stated that someone must be Catholic, and neither does the church teach that (we've gone over that before).



*Vatican:*
*Salvation Through  Catholic Church Only - Others "Defective" In Grace!*
By Philip Pullella 9-10-00

*Dismay, Disdain Over Vatican Document*

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Religious leaders and theologians reacted with dismay and disdain Wednesday to a Vatican document which rejected the concept that other religions could be considered equal to Roman Catholicism. 

The controversial document, issued Tuesday by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stunned many, worried others and left a number indifferent. 

But there was general concern that the complex theological document could hurt decades of inter-religious dialogue that has made great strides since the 1962-1965 Second Vatican Council.

The bitterness appeared to be felt most by other Christian religions, which the document implied were second-rate because of "defects," including their refusal to recognize papal primacy."

Vatican: Salvation Through Catholic Church Only - Others "Defective" In Grace!


*In other news:*

*Salvation in the Roman Church Only.* Rome taught that all who did not acknowledge the pope as God’s representative on earth and the Roman Catholic Church as the only true church were damned. Salvation was confined within the teachings of the Roman Church. Every person who disagreed with the Roman Church was in line for a heresy trial and perhaps excommunication. Excommunication meant the loss of one’s soul.

“Salvation, taken from the hands of God, fell into those of the priests, who set themselves in the place of our Lord. Souls thirsting for pardon were no more to look to heaven, but to the Church, and above all to its pretended head. To these blinded souls the Roman pontiff was God. Hence the greatness of the popes - hence unutterable abuses” (D’aubigne). 
The Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages

And The Popes' Decree:

*Pope Innocent III:* "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.

*Pope Boniface VIII:* "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." From his Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.

*Pope Eugene IV:* "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." From his Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.

Can non-Catholics be saved, according to the Roman Catholic Church?


----------



## hotcoffee

Captain George Athey left our home in Ireland and journeyed to the Southern Maryland as an indentured servant of Sir Thomas Dent... Athey the reason?

When Oliver Cromwell came to town... they ran us out of our home.... they also took away our livelihood.....  

The Catholic/Protestant discussion has been going on for a long time... and I don't think anyone is going to end it here in this thread....


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> *Vatican:*
> *Salvation Through  Catholic Church Only - Others "Defective" In Grace!*
> By Philip Pullella 9-10-00
> 
> *Dismay, Disdain Over Vatican Document*
> 
> VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Religious leaders and theologians reacted with dismay and disdain Wednesday to a Vatican document which rejected the concept that other religions could be considered equal to Roman Catholicism.
> 
> The controversial document, issued Tuesday by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stunned many, worried others and left a number indifferent.
> 
> But there was general concern that the complex theological document could hurt decades of inter-religious dialogue that has made great strides since the 1962-1965 Second Vatican Council.
> 
> The bitterness appeared to be felt most by other Christian religions, which the document implied were second-rate because of "defects," including their refusal to recognize papal primacy."
> 
> Vatican: Salvation Through Catholic Church Only - Others "Defective" In Grace!
> 
> 
> *In other news:*
> 
> *Salvation in the Roman Church Only.* Rome taught that all who did not acknowledge the pope as God’s representative on earth and the Roman Catholic Church as the only true church were damned. Salvation was confined within the teachings of the Roman Church. Every person who disagreed with the Roman Church was in line for a heresy trial and perhaps excommunication. Excommunication meant the loss of one’s soul.
> 
> “Salvation, taken from the hands of God, fell into those of the priests, who set themselves in the place of our Lord. Souls thirsting for pardon were no more to look to heaven, but to the Church, and above all to its pretended head. To these blinded souls the Roman pontiff was God. Hence the greatness of the popes - hence unutterable abuses” (D’aubigne).
> The Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages
> 
> And The Popes' Decree:
> 
> *Pope Innocent III:* "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.
> 
> *Pope Boniface VIII:* "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." From his Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.
> 
> *Pope Eugene IV:* "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." From his Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.
> 
> Can non-Catholics be saved, according to the Roman Catholic Church?



Mike, we've gone over this before.  But, for the benefit of others I will repeat in a nutshell.  The Catholic Church believes it is one with Christ, He is the head and we are the Body.  So with that in mind, it is saying that outside of Jesus Christ no one is saved.

Not sayin' you have to agree.  I won't even accuse you of bearing false witness this time.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Mike, we've gone over this before.  But, for the benefit of others I will repeat in a nutshell.  The Catholic Church believes it is one with Christ, He is the head and we are the Body.  So with that in mind, it is saying that outside of Jesus Christ no one is saved.
> 
> Not sayin' you have to agree.  I won't even accuse you of bearing false witness this time.



LOL 

No, my dear libby, here is exactly the reason why you cannot accuse me of bearing false witness (did you miss it in my earlier post?)

*Pope Boniface VIII:* *"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." *From his Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.


Now, if all Roman Catholics, such as yourself believe in the "infallibility" of the office of the pope, the above statement declares that ALL HUMANS are to be subject to the Roman Pontiff for Salvation! That sounds pretty clear to me as to what the Vatican has decreed.

If I recall, dear libby, you once conceded that perhaps the pope is really not "infallible" in all things, yet when you responded to Godblessdon1218 in the thread she started. you stated the following:



			
				libby said:
			
		

> As I said before, if you are Catholic and you believe all that the church teaches, then go to Confession and return to the fullness of the faith. If you do not believe in the doctrines of the church, i.e. the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, 100% pro-life with no exceptions, *papal infallibility, *then I hope that you can find another Christian tradition that suits you better and draws you closer to Jesus Christ. Ultimately, it will be my prayer that your journey will lead you back into the Catholic Church.
> If you go to the priest in the area and we can get that verification of your situation, I can promise you that I will ask my priest to take up a special collection for you and your son.
> 
> Post #30 at
> http://forums.somd.com/religion/179051-there-any-help-3.html




So which is it libby?

*1.* If the pope is infallible then the Vatican is making the claim that the pope is above all mankind and must be subject to him, thus making the RCC the only church to be subject to for Salvation.

*2. *If the pope is fallible, then the Vatican and all the popes' decrees have been wrong to even profess exclusivity to the leadership and administration of The Word of God. That means that other tenets of rituals, traditions and doctrines of the RCC may also be off track when they do not agree with what the Holy Bible States, thus, RCC has their own supplemental literature to justify the RCC teachings.

Sorry, my dear libby, call me what you may and think of me what you may. I have brought plenty of evidence before you but like others have noticd and stated you really do persist on defending not your faith in Jesus Christ but your faith in the Roman Catholic Church.

You either believe the popes 100% or you believe Jesus 100%.

P.S. I still love you as a friend.


----------



## camily

libby said:


> Okay, Baydoll,
> I'm gonna let you have the last word; I'm finished with you.  Your forked tongue is no imitation of the Jesus Christ you profess to love.  You have no theological or historical foundation for anything you've said.  You are the beneficiary of 2000 years of Christian history that came before you, and it's clear you've put no thought of your own into the Truth of the Infinitely Holy God.  You like holding hands and singing Kumbaya, and the very liberal, moral relativism that is provided by personal interpretation of Scripture.  Have a ball.





Im_Me said:


> I agree with you Baydoll.  They taught you well in Moonie school.  Now when they install the warmth and christian kindness chips, You'll seem just like a real christian, instead of a full sized replica.
> 
> P.S.  Now where do I find in in the bible to pat myself on the back and do a victory dance?



Wow.


----------



## baydoll

camily said:


> Wow.



LOL!! Thanks, Camily. You're an angel. 

Btw, did you know that crazy lady Marguerite is Catholic?


----------



## baydoll

Starman3000m said:


> Don't feel alone baydoll. I've earned the name "Uncle Copy and Paste" because I often post the verse(s) from the Holy Bible that refer to the discussion at hand and to verify that the points being made are not my thoughts  but are what the Bible states. I will give credit to Im_Me as she has apologized for the name calling on that one.
> 
> Then, I was told to "go play in traffic" by my dear friend libby. I still love her as a friend but have been asking her if it's OK for me to come in from playing in the traffic yet - still no response.
> 
> 
> 
> Whew! That car sure came pretty close that time!



Thanks, Starman.  

 See that's the thing....they don't realize that we do love them and only have their best interests at heart. We long to see their eyes open to the truth of their religion but they will not do so and instead either sling mud at us or put us on ignore, which is basically doing this: .

 Once in a while, one of them is brave enough to actually wander out from underneath their Church's total control over them and  see if what we're saying is legit or not.  And brave enough to use their brains to seriously examine whether their Church IS really who it claims to be. Not many of them do this but I do know a few. It is a delight to see the scales fall from their eyes!! This is the main reason why I do what I do.  These wonderful people are so grateful that we are willing to put ourselves out there and brave all the name calling and attacking of our character from other Catholics so that perhaps just one lost Catholic soul will see the illusion of the Roman Catholic Church and come out of her and be saved!

I get this same treatment from the Catholics all the time. I know they only do this to shut us the heck up. They don't LIKE when people examine that Church of theirs. It makes them extremely uncomfortable. It's like lifting up a rock and seeing all those slimy creatures underneath. They love the dark and hate the light.  When and if  the light does shines on them, they madly scurry around trying to find another rock to hide under. This is the Catholic Church. It does not want anyone examining them for to do reveals lots of dark creatures lurking underneath that 'heavenly' facade of theirs. And that's all it is too, an illusion. 

  Their Church has taught them to shut down their brains and let THEM guide them. They are not allowed to ever question that. They are to accept EVERYTHING and ANYTHING without question. This is one of the ways Cults control their people. It is not so in God's Word where it says we are to examine everything. Even someone who claims to come from God. Paul said even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! (Gal 1:8) and yet the Catholics ignore that verse. Over and over again. 

 And as I said before, IF the Catholic Church IS the One True Church guided by the Holy Spirit Who is Truth, then their Church will stand up to any attacks upon it. And instead of fighting us and calling us names and attacking our character and putting us on ignore and other various things that they do to get us to shut up and go away, they would GLADLY welcome the opportunity for us to scrutinze their Church.


----------



## Highlander

baydoll said:


> Thanks, Starman.
> 
> See that's the thing....they don't realize that we do love them and only have their best interests at heart. We long to see their eyes open to the truth of their religion but they will not do so and instead either sling mud at us or put us on ignore, which is basically doing this: .
> 
> Once in a while, one of them is brave enough to actually wander out from underneath their Church's total control over them and  see if what we're saying is legit or not.  And brave enough to use their brains to seriously examine whether their Church IS really who it claims to be. Not many of them do this but I do know a few. It is a delight to see the scales fall from their eyes!! This is the main reason why I do what I do.  These wonderful people are so grateful that we are willing to put ourselves out there and brave all the name calling and attacking of our character from other Catholics so that perhaps just one lost Catholic soul will see the illusion of the Roman Catholic Church and come out of her and be saved!
> 
> I get this same treatment from the Catholics all the time. I know they only do this to shut us the heck up. They don't LIKE when people examine that Church of theirs. It makes them extremely uncomfortable. It's like lifting up a rock and seeing all those slimy creatures underneath. They love the dark and hate the light.  When and if  the light does shines on them, they madly scurry around trying to find another rock to hide under. This is the Catholic Church. It does not want anyone examining them for to do reveals lots of dark creatures lurking underneath that 'heavenly' facade of theirs. And that's all it is too, an illusion.
> 
> Their Church has taught them to shut down their brains and let THEM guide them. They are not allowed to ever question that. They are to accept EVERYTHING and ANYTHING without question. This is one of the ways Cults control their people. It is not so in God's Word where it says we are to examine everything. Even someone who claims to come from God. Paul said even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! (Gal 1:8) and yet the Catholics ignore that verse. Over and over again.
> 
> And as I said before, IF the Catholic Church IS the One True Church guided by the Holy Spirit Who is Truth, then their Church will stand up to any attacks upon it. And instead of fighting us and calling us names and attacking our character and putting us on ignore and other various things that they do to get us to shut up and go away, they would GLADLY welcome the opportunity for us to scrutinze their Church.



Wow, this thread has lasted a lot longer than I thought it would.  I was in church last week.  Usually all 4 masses are pretty full but we went to the 11:15 mass and attendance was down quite a bit. I was a little concerned that maybe Starmon and ItalianS were out in the parking lot saving all of us Catholics.  I didn't see them out there.  I guess it was just due to the nice weather.


----------



## baydoll

Highlander said:


> Wow, this thread has lasted a lot longer than I thought it would.  I was in church last week.  Usually all 4 masses are pretty full but we went to the 11:15 mass and attendance was down quite a bit. I was a little concerned that maybe Starmon and ItalianS were out in the parking lot saving all of us Catholics.  I didn't see them out there.  I guess it was just due to the nice weather.





Hi Highlander! 

Yes this has been quite an interesting thread! Thanks for starting it.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Highlander said:


> Wow, this thread has lasted a lot longer than I thought it would.  I was in church last week.  Usually all 4 masses are pretty full but we went to the 11:15 mass and attendance was down quite a bit. I was a little concerned that maybe Starmon and ItalianS were out in the parking lot saving all of us Catholics.  I didn't see them out there.  I guess it was just due to the nice weather.


Nah, God wouldn't let me in there. I tried to turn into the parking lot but my steering wheel just wouldn't turn so I drove on...:shrug:


----------



## Starman3000m

Highlander said:


> Wow, this thread has lasted a lot longer than I thought it would.  I was in church last week.  Usually all 4 masses are pretty full but we went to the 11:15 mass and attendance was down quite a bit. I was a little concerned that maybe Starmon and ItalianS were out in the parking lot saving all of us Catholics.  I didn't see them out there.  I guess it was just due to the nice weather.



LOL No need for concern my friend. It's too long of a drive for my 1989 Toyota to travel to your church parking lot. However, I already have more than 420,000 original miles on it and I've been waiting to retire my car when it reaches 500,000 - Lord Willing! Guess I could drive up to your church next Sunday with my BAC tracts and add some extra miles real fast.

Out of curiosity, Highlander, you haven't been telling folks there about our little Born-Again Cult Group on this somd forum have you?

If you have, perhaps attendance at your church has declined because many of them have been reading our posts and finding out that ...OOOPPS, maybe the RCC teachings do conflict with God's Word in the Holy Bible afterall. (BTW: Thanks for starting this thread)


----------



## Highlander

Starman3000m said:


> LOL No need for concern my friend. It's too long of a drive for my 1989 Toyota to travel to your church parking lot. However, I already have more than 420,000 original miles on it and I've been waiting to retire my car when it reaches 500,000 - Lord Willing! Guess I could drive up to your church next Sunday with my BAC tracts and add some extra miles real fast.
> 
> Out of curiosity, Highlander, you haven't been telling folks there about our little Born-Again Cult Group on this somd forum have you?
> 
> If you have, perhaps attendance at your church has declined because many of them have been reading our posts and finding out that ...OOOPPS, maybe the RCC teachings do conflict with God's Word in the Holy Bible afterall. (BTW: Thanks for starting this thread)





You must be so proud of that ride!  That's sweet.  Hopefully you have a bunch of bumbers stickers on the back bashing the Catholic Church.  If that's what makes you feel good, go for it. 

Maybe you've got it all wrong and the Catholic church has it all right but I know you can't open your mind to that possibility.  Maybe the bible has very little to do with reality of God, but whose to say.  Oh, that's right.  You say it's so, so it's TRUE.  No other possibilty is possible.  

Again,  you are so cool to have a 1989 Toyota with all those miles on it.  I'm not sure why anyone would keep a car so long.  I'm sure your neighbors see it as an eyesore but who cares.  Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.


----------



## Starman3000m

Highlander said:


> You must be so proud of that ride!  That's sweet.  Hopefully you have a bunch of bumbers stickers on the back bashing the Catholic Church.  If that's what makes you feel good, go for it.
> 
> Maybe you've got it all wrong and the Catholic church has it all right but I know you can't open your mind to that possibility.  Maybe the bible has very little to do with reality of God, but whose to say.  Oh, that's right.  You say it's so, so it's TRUE.  No other possibilty is possible.
> 
> Again,  you are so cool to have a 1989 Toyota with all those miles on it.  I'm not sure why anyone would keep a car so long.  I'm sure your neighbors see it as an eyesore but who cares.  Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.



Why does it not surprise me that you would respond as you have Highlander?

Perhaps it's because I've heard your kind of retorts before and I've come to expect them.



			
				Highlander said:
			
		

> *Post#1*
> Let's educate ourselves to try to better understand where our 2-3 BAC come from. There seem to be some phycological isues involved that we should consider. (followed by list of articles)
> 
> http://forums.somd.com/religion/179386-born-again-cult.html






			
				Highlander said:
			
		

> *Post #25*
> You two nut cases are very entertaining. So, I'm supposed to believe that the 1.3 billion Catholics in this world have it all wrong and a bunch of so called born agains have it all figured out. You two are really delusional. Good luck with your life and the way YOU choose to practice your religion.
> 
> *Post #27*
> Again, thanks for the entertainment, Oh Wise One!
> 
> http://forums.somd.com/religion/179386-born-again-cult-3.html






			
				Highlander said:
			
		

> *Post #39*
> I am Catholic. These two goofs are always trying to teach "us" how wrong the Catholic church is. That's why I care. I think they are wrong and I don't appreciate their arrogance. They think they have all the answers which makes me sick…
> 
> http://forums.somd.com/religion/179386-born-again-cult-4.html


----------



## baydoll

Highlander said:


> Maybe you've got it all wrong and the Catholic church has it all right but I know you can't open your mind to that possibility.  Maybe the bible has very little to do with reality of God, but whose to say.  Oh, that's right.  You say it's so, so it's TRUE.  No other possibilty is possible.



How do you know the Catholic Church has it right?


----------



## hotcoffee

Highlander said:


> Maybe you've got it all wrong and the Catholic church has it all right but _I know you can't open your mind to that possibility. _ *Maybe the bible has very little to do with reality of God, but whose to say.*  Oh, that's right.  You say it's so, so it's TRUE.  No other possibilty is possible.



I have to apologize to you....  I honestly doubt your salvation.... I apologize because your salvation is between you and the Lord and only He knows if He will answer when you call His name...

I could care less about your statement about the catholic church....what is in the past is forgiven....  

But when you state:  *Maybe the bible has very little to do with reality of God, but whose to say.  ...*


Well that's just screaming fake....  Let me ask you something...._ what would you do if a child stumbled across that statement..._ and mistook you for an intelligent adult... and based on that believed that hogwash....  start grinding that mill stone buster.... 

I apologize 



baydoll said:


> How do you know the Catholic Church has it right?



I have no idea why _he_ would even write such a thing....  clearly he's deranged... or possessed....


----------



## baydoll

hotcoffee said:


> I have no idea why _he_ would even write such a thing....  clearly he's deranged... or possessed....



Or blinded. 

Sadly, the Catholic Church will do that, you know. Put blinders on its followers so they cannot see the Truth.


----------



## Highlander

baydoll said:


> Or blinded.
> 
> Sadly, the Born Again Christians will do that, you know. Put blinders on its followers so they cannot see the Truth.




fixed


----------



## Highlander

baydoll said:


> How do you know the Catholic Church has it right?



I didn't exactly say that they did, did I?   What makes the BACs think they have it all figured out?


----------



## Highlander

hotcoffee said:


> I have to apologize to you....  I honestly doubt your salvation.... I apologize because your salvation is between you and the Lord and only He knows if He will answer when you call His name...
> 
> I could care less about your statement about the catholic church....what is in the past is forgiven....
> 
> But when you state:  *Maybe the bible has very little to do with reality of God, but whose to say.  ...*
> 
> 
> Well that's just screaming fake....  Let me ask you something...._ what would you do if a child stumbled across that statement..._ and mistook you for an intelligent adult... and based on that believed that hogwash....  start grinding that mill stone buster....
> 
> I apologize
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea why _he_ would even write such a thing....  clearly he's deranged... or possessed....



I guess I could have worded that a little differently.  Anyway,  I am neither deranged or possessed.  A little crazy maybe, but that's it.


----------



## Starman3000m

hotcoffee said:


> I have to apologize to you....  I honestly doubt your salvation.... I apologize because your salvation is between you and the Lord and only He knows if He will answer when you call His name...
> 
> I could care less about your statement about the catholic church....what is in the past is forgiven....
> 
> But when you state:  *Maybe the bible has very little to do with reality of God, but whose to say.  ...*
> 
> 
> Well that's just screaming fake....  Let me ask you something...._ what would you do if a child stumbled across that statement..._ and mistook you for an intelligent adult... and based on that believed that hogwash....  start grinding that mill stone buster....
> 
> I apologize
> 
> I have no idea why _he_ would even write such a thing....  clearly he's deranged... or possessed....



I'm really glad you commented on that. I caught that too and was really wondering about Highlander's commitment to God - if he really has made a commitment.

Highlander is in my prayers as are libby and Im_Me; et al,  who continue to defend their "church" more than defend their relationship with God through Christ.


2 Corinthians, verses:

1: Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
2: But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
3: *But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:*
4: *In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.* *
5: For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
6: For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
7: But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
8: We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair;
9: Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed;

* Satan is referred to as the "god of this world" in the sense that his influence permeates among mankind and has since the days of Adam and Eve. Satan's influence is just as effective through deceptive religions that keep people controlled and from coming to the full Saving knowledge and acceptance of Christ.

*Jesus came into this world but was not of this world:*

And he said unto them, *Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.* (John 8:23-24)


----------



## Starman3000m

Highlander said:


> I didn't exactly say that they did, did I?   What makes the BACs think they have it all figured out?



Well, Yes, Highlander you did say that! Let me remind you:



			
				Highlander said:
			
		

> *Post #25*
> You two nut cases are very entertaining. *So, I'm supposed to believe that the 1.3 billion Catholics in this world have it all wrong and a bunch of so called born agains have it all figured out. *You two are really delusional. Good luck with your life and the way YOU choose to practice your religion.
> http://forums.somd.com/religion/179386-born-again-cult-3.html



It sure seems that you are implying that 1.3 Billion Catholics have exclusivity on the truth because of the numbers and that the small group of Born Again Believers in Christ are - in your words - "delusional"

BTW: I do forgive you for your outbursts of keyboard lashing and even for making fun of my little Toyota. You are in my prayers.


----------



## ItalianScallion

438 posts to finally get to what I've been saying all along. 
I took a lot of flack from many here about "judging" people but, when these kinds of statements come out, it's not hard to make a right judgment. Spiritually enlightened mouths CANNOT speak against the Bible. No saved person talks against what God says is essential for salvation: Being born again. Maybe out of ignorance but not from the heart. James 3 says: "Fresh water and salt water cannot flow from a the same stream"...
Why do you think I've been so adamant about this point? I've been there myself. 
And, yes, Highlander, 1.3 billion Catholics can be dead wrong. We're trying to make the 4 or 5 of you on here NOT be included in that number...


----------



## camily

The Catholic/Evangelical comparison grid
Let us compare the Evangelical "getting saved" process to the Catholic "Conversion of Heart" experience. I think we will find many more similarities than we realize.

Step Evangelicals  Catholics

1
Sin
Evangelical
 A person is apart from God and a slave to sin. Personal sin and ignorance of Jesus have condemned them. 
Catholic
A person is apart from God and a slave to grave sins (serious) and/or venial sins (not as serious). Perhaps they were baptised at birth but have lost the grace of that sacrament through rebellion, complacency or disbelief.  
2
Evangelical
Awakening Something happens that lets him/her see the error of his/her ways (a movement of the Spirit) 
Catholic
Something happens that lets him/her see the error of his/her ways (a movement of the Spirit).  
3
Repent
Evangelical
 The sinner repents before God and asks Jesus into his/her life (is born again). It is a personal encounter with Jesus. Evangelicals would say he is "saved" from final damnation. 
Catholic
There is an alpine curious (affliction of spirit) and compunction cords (repentance of heart) and conversion of heart. A "second conversion" that is a personal encounter with Jesus. (Catechism 1428,
Also, in Acts 2, and Col 7:9 people are having a personal encounter with the Holy Spirit) 

4
Confess
Ecangelical
 Usually, the sinner will speak to his pastor and prays with him. He gets active in his Church again. 
Catholic
The sinner confesses his sins before God and man (a Priest) and asks forgiveness which is granted by God. He/she has a reconciliation with God and Church and is freed of "eternal punishment" of hell. He/she is restored to the Grace received at baptism 
5
Amend
Evangelical
 Amends are often made where possible (this attempts to repair injuries caused to neighbours) i.e., returning stolen goods, apologizing for harms done. etc... 
Catholic
Amends are made where possible (this attempts to repair injuries to neighbours). i.e., returning stolen goods, apologizing for harms done. This is called restitution or "making satisfaction" (Catechism 1459) 
6
Penance
Evangelical
 He/she tries to live a useful life of service out of love for Jesus  
Catholic
Penance. This helps to restore the injuries that the sin caused the sinner him/herself. He/she tries to live a useful life of service, out of love for Jesus and a desire to please him. (Charity)

Are Catholics Born Again


----------



## Radiant1

*Things that make you go hmmm*

You know, I had an acquaintance who was a "once saved always saved" type of Christian.

She was "saved" and therefore baptized twice while she lived here. (I guess it didn't take the first time?)

Then she moved. Months later I got a phone call from her confessing that she stole from me. I told her I already knew this but why tell me now? She said she has just been saved.

So I asked her what happened the other two times? She replied that she only thought she was saved the other two times.

So I ask her what makes her think she's saved this time? She said she just knows.

Uh hmmmm.

I didn't disavow her of her newfound fervor; however, it certainly led me to believe that reconciliation to God is a life-long ongoing process and there is no one-time deal.


----------



## hotcoffee

Radiant1 said:


> You know, I had an acquaintance who was a "once saved always saved" type of Christian.
> 
> She was "saved" and therefore baptized twice while she lived here. (I guess it didn't take the first time?)
> 
> Then she moved. Months later I got a phone call from her confessing that she stole from me. I told her I already knew this but why tell me now? She said she has just been saved.
> 
> So I asked her what happened the other two times? She replied that she only thought she was saved the other two times.
> 
> So I ask her what makes her think she's saved this time? She said she just knows.
> 
> Uh hmmmm.
> 
> I didn't disavow her of her newfound fervor; however, it certainly led me to believe that reconciliation to God is a life-long ongoing process and there is no one-time deal.



"I am the light of the world.  Whoever follows Me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life."  John 8:12

Your friend sounds like she needs to read the Bible... in other words... she needs an instruction book for life...

Is she the only Born Again Christian you know?


----------



## Radiant1

hotcoffee said:


> "I am the light of the world.  Whoever follows Me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life."  John 8:12
> 
> Your friend sounds like she needs to read the Bible... in other words... she needs an instruction book for life...
> 
> Is she the only Born Again Christian you know?



She reads the bible daily, or at least did last I knew. So, now what say you?

No.


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> She reads the bible daily, or at least did last I knew. So, now what say you?
> 
> No.



Sheep in wolves clothing. 

A Tare trying to pose as a Wheat.


----------



## baydoll

Highlander said:


> fixed




Do you like being a false witness, Highlander? 

Is that one of the 'fruits' of being Catholic?


----------



## baydoll

Highlander said:


> I didn't exactly say that they did, did I?   What makes the BACs think they have it all figured out?





Then why are you Catholic? If you don't know if your Church has it right, then how do you know we're wrong?


----------



## Radiant1

baydoll said:


> Sheep in wolves clothing.
> 
> A Tare trying to pose as a Wheat.



Uh, ok. 

Are you tare or wheat?


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> Uh, ok.
> 
> Are you tare or wheat?



Wheat. 

What are you?


----------



## Radiant1

baydoll said:


> Wheat.
> 
> What are you?



How do you know? Afterall, my friend thought she was wheat too.

As for me, that remains to be seen. I have been redeemed; however, my salvation remains to be seen.


----------



## camily

Radiant1 said:


> How do you know? Afterall, my friend thought she was wheat too.
> 
> As for me, that remains to be seen. I have been redeemed; however, my salvation remains to be seen.



If you doubt, you're not.
Your friend knew, trust me.


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> How do you know? Afterall, my friend thought she was wheat too.




I agree with camily. 

How do I know? Fruits. Also the Spirit tells me I am a Child of God. He is my Father. I belong to Him. For Eternity. 

How do you know your friend thought she was a wheat too? How do you know she wasn't lying to you? Happens all the time. 



> As for me, that remains to be seen. I have been redeemed; however, my salvation remains to be seen





> Gal 4:6
> And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!"



If you are unsure if you belong to God, then chances are you don't.


----------



## Highlander

baydoll said:


> Then why are you Catholic? If you don't know if your Church has it right, then how do you know we're wrong?



You're just as hardheaded as Starman and Italian.  Or you are one of their MPDs.  You don't like it when I say something against you Born Again types.  Gee, could it be that Catholics are offended by your claim to know it all or by your digs at the Catholic teachings.   YEP!  BTW,  quit trying to claim you have all the answers.  Quit cutting on the Catholic church.  If you wanna save someone, go stand in the subway stations and  street corners shouting out your message.  That, at least, is entertaining.  You don't have to like or agree with the teachings of the Catholic church but that doesn't mean you should be trying to save us.  I don't need your help.


----------



## baydoll

Highlander said:


> You're just as hardheaded as Starman and Italian.  Or you are one of their MPDs.  You don't like it when I say something against you Born Again types.  Gee, could it be that Catholics are offended by your claim to know it all or by your digs at the Catholic teachings.   YEP!  BTW,  quit trying to claim you have all the answers.  Quit cutting on the Catholic church.  If you wanna save someone, go stand in the subway stations and  street corners shouting out your message.  That, at least, is entertaining.  You don't have to like or agree with the teachings of the Catholic church but that doesn't mean you should be trying to save us.  I don't need your help.



Who said I was trying to save you? 

Actually the only thing I am 'trying to do' here is expose the lies of your Church.


----------



## Radiant1

camily said:


> If you doubt, you're not.
> Your friend knew, trust me.



Doubt what? Doubt God's existance? Doubt Jesus was the son of God? Doubt that one might not have assurance of heaven? 

Why should I trust you?



baydoll said:


> I agree with camily.
> 
> How do I know? Fruits.
> 
> How do you know your friend thought she was a wheat too? How do you know she wasn't lying to you? Happens all the time.



Really now. So, are you saying your fruit is always fresh and never rotten? And who judges what state your fruit is? God? You? Me? You might find out tomorrow that you really were chaffe afterall just like my friend.

She may have been lying to me. You may be lying to me. After all, "it happens all the time".



baydoll said:


> If you are unsure if you belong to God, then chances are you don't.



"chances are" means you have no clue. 

By nature of my creation I belong to God. I was redeemed at my baptism. As for my salvation, I'll continue to work that out with fear and trembling.


----------



## camily

Radiant1 said:


> Doubt what? Doubt God's existance? Doubt Jesus was the son of God? Doubt that one might not have assurance of heaven?
> 
> Why should I trust you?
> 
> 
> 
> Really now. So, are you saying your fruit is always fresh and never rotten? And who judges what state your fruit is? God? You? Me? You might find out tomorrow that you really were chaffe afterall just like my friend.
> 
> She may have been lying to me. You may be lying to me. After all, "it happens all the time".
> 
> 
> 
> "chances are" means you have no clue.
> 
> By nature of my creation I belong to God. I was redeemed at my baptism. As for my salvation, I'll continue to work that out with fear and trembling.



If you have real salvation then you know without a doubt where you're going when you die. End of story.


----------



## baydoll

> Really now. So, are you saying your fruit is always fresh and never rotten? And who judges what state your fruit is? God? You? Me? You might find out tomorrow that you really were chaffe afterall just like my friend.
> 
> She may have been lying to me. You may be lying to me. After all, "it happens all the time".




Do you know what the Fruit of the Spirit are, Radiant?

Quote:





> "chances are" means you have no clue.



Precisely.  If you doubt your salvation you really don't have a clue. 



> By nature of my creation I belong to God. I was redeemed at my baptism.



Did you repent of your sins at the time of your baptism? Believe in Christ with all your heart? Trust in what He did on the Cross to save you? 






> As for my salvation, I'll continue to work that out with fear and trembling



Are you working FOR your salvation or working it OUT, Radiant?


----------



## baydoll

camily said:


> If you have real salvation then you know without a doubt where you're going when you die. End of story.



Amen, camily, amen.


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> She may have been lying to me. You may be lying to me. After all, "it happens all the time".



And Catholics don't lie?

And of course you don't ever lie either, right?


----------



## Radiant1

camily said:


> If you have real salvation then you know without a doubt where you're going when you die. End of story.



So, let me get this straight...I have real salvation if I'm sure I'm going to heaven? My friend thought so too, but it turns out you say she was lying. Hmmm.



baydoll said:


> Do you know what the Fruit of the Spirit are, Radiant?



Yes, and? Do you always exhibit those fruits? 



baydoll said:


> Precisely.  If you doubt your salvation you really don't have a clue.



You're right. I don't have a clue, because I am not aware of what I will or will not do in the future before I die. Psst...guess what...neither do you.



baydoll said:


> Did you repent of your sins at the time of your baptism? Believe in Christ with all your heart? Trust in what He did on the Cross to save you?



I do that on a regular basis. Am I wasting my time? Should I have only done this once and I'm in? 



baydoll said:


> Are you working FOR your salvation or working it OUT, Radiant?



Did you read what I wrote? If so, then you have your answer. If you question it, I suggest you take it up with St. Paul.


----------



## Radiant1

baydoll said:


> And Catholics don't lie?
> 
> And of course you don't ever lie either, right?



The issue here is, are YOU lying to me? Or better yet, are YOU lying to yourself much like my friend did? How do you really know? 

Oh, that's right, your fruits.

But how do you judge that you actually exhibit such fruit? Do you pat yourself on the back? Do you rely on others to do so? Or, are you waiting for God to tell you on that great and terrible day?


----------



## PsyOps

Radiant1 said:


> The issue here is, are YOU lying to me? Or better yet, are YOU lying to yourself much like my friend did? How do you really know?
> 
> Oh, that's right, your fruits.
> 
> But how do you judge that you actually exhibit such fruit? Do you pat yourself on the back? Do you rely on others to do so? Or, are you waiting for God to tell you on that great and terrible day?



If you don't mind me jumping in here... I have been a Christian for over 30 years.  If anyone tries to tell you that once you are saved (Born Again) that your life is the straight and narrow forever more, they are either lying or they don't understand the reality of it.  Peter is the greatest example of a believer falling off the wagon (for lack of a better way to put it) during Jesus’ capture and crucifixion.  I have, over the course of the past 30 years, gone "astray" countless times.  I continue to fall short.  I'm always drawn back to God with regret and sorrow that I let the world suck me in away from God.  But I am human and these things will happen.  These falls keep me humble and never allow me to think I have it all figured out.

I think there is this misinformation that somehow Christians are these impervious beings that nothing can penetrate their will to be that Christian the rest of the world expects them to be.  Even some Christians believe this.  But to assert that because someone has discovered, rediscovered and rediscovered again and again themselves as a Christian doesn’t mean they aren’t.  Becoming a Christian is just like becoming an adult.  You go through a long process of trying to find yourself and your place in the faith.  Even after 30+ years I still struggle to find myself in my faith; having doubts and routinely ask God “Why”. 

Personally I think if you aren’t on a constant path of rediscovery of your faith then you are doing something wrong.  If you are content with where you are, thinking you have it all figured out and have nothing else to strive towards, I think you are missing the larger point.  I think of it a lot like music.  I am a guitar player.  I am never content with believing I am in the perfect place with my playing.  I feel there is always something new to learn and more things to discover that can redefine my playing.  When a musician becomes content in a certain place in the music world they will find that they are dead musically because there is an endless and growing world to learn from.  The same is true with being a Christian.


----------



## Radiant1

PsyOps said:


> If you don't mind me jumping in here... I have been a Christian for over 30 years.  *If anyone tries to tell you that once you are saved (Born Again) that your life is the straight and narrow forever more, they are either lying or they don't understand the reality of it*.  Peter is the greatest example of a believer falling off the wagon (for lack of a better way to put it) during Jesus’ capture and crucifixion.  I have, over the course of the past 30 years, gone "astray" countless times.  *I continue to fall short.  I'm always drawn back to God with regret and sorrow that I let the world suck me in away from God.  But I am human and these things will happen.  These falls keep me humble and never allow me to think I have it all figured out.*
> 
> I think there is this misinformation that somehow Christians are these impervious beings that nothing can penetrate their will to be that Christian the rest of the world expects them to be.  Even some Christians believe this.  But to assert that because someone has discovered, rediscovered and rediscovered again and again themselves as a Christian doesn’t mean they aren’t.  Becoming a Christian is just like becoming an adult.  *You go through a long process of trying to find yourself and your place in the faith.  *Even after 30+ years *I still struggle to find myself in my faith; having doubts and routinely ask God “Why”. *
> 
> *Personally I think if you aren’t on a constant path of rediscovery of your faith then you are doing something wrong.  *If you are content with where you are, thinking you have it all figured out and have nothing else to strive towards, I think you are missing the larger point.  I think of it a lot like music.  I am a guitar player.  I am never content with believing I am in the perfect place with my playing.  I feel there is always something new to learn and more things to discover that can redefine my playing.  When a musician becomes content in a certain place in the music world they will find that they are dead musically because there is an endless and growing world to learn from.  The same is true with being a Christian.



 

Do you think simply being on the journey guarantees your salvation?


----------



## PsyOps

Radiant1 said:


> Do you think simply being on the journey guarantees your salvation?



Simply put... no.  But I'll elaborate.

I can only give you my answer from a Christian point of view.  I wont elaborate on the “well what about those that believe in the Islamic faith or Buddhists?”  God will deal with them in His own way that I can’t and wont elaborate on except to say, according to the bible I believe in they are not saved.

That being said, as a Christian, accepting Christ is the beginning of the journey.  If you accept Christ as your savior, according to my understanding of the Bible, you are saved.  Everything else follows.  It does not guarantee a happy life; although it does put a different perspective of joy in your heart.  It does not mean you suddenly have some superior ability to overcome sin; it only means that God has forgiven you.  It does not mean you are granted the privilege of condemning other that you interpret as not being saved; it means that you must have a new level of love for those people and are charged to encourage them to accept Christ as your savior.  We can make a new thread on what salvation means if you want but to put it more simply… the only thing that guarantees your salvation is accepting Christ as your savior.  The journey is what follows.  What if you accept Christ one day and die the next without being to experience this journey?  Are you saved?  I would say absolutely… YES!  But only God knows each heart.  It’s not up to me to say someone is or isn’t saved.  Doing so is presumptuous and arrogant to think you know what God knows in terms of salvation.  

Me?  I believe I am saved even though I have lived a questionable life along the way.  None of that has ever caused me to lose sight of who God and Jesus are in my life.  I don’t look toward other people to bring me to God.  I don’t allow peoples’ criticisms of judgments to cause me to forget who God is.  I feel like my journey has brought me to a place that has made me realize man is the antithesis of God.  People have let me down time and time again; but God has never.  I have life.  I have food.  I am clothed.  I have a great home and an awesome family.  An when I look at pictures of the poor folks starving in places of Africa, yet they still are able to play happily and smile and show more joy in their lives than spoiled people like Americans, I know there is a God.  My journey has taught me how to be humble and thankful for all that I have because it is more than I deserve given the rest of the world.

Wasn’t that a long-winded rant.  Sorry.  Hope that answered your question at least from my poorly articulate point-of-view.


----------



## Starman3000m

PsyOps said:


> Simply put... no.  But I'll elaborate.
> 
> I can only give you my answer from a Christian point of view.  I wont elaborate on the “well what about those that believe in the Islamic faith or Buddhists?”  God will deal with them in His own way that I can’t and wont elaborate on except to say, according to the bible I believe in they are not saved.
> 
> That being said, as a Christian, accepting Christ is the beginning of the journey.  If you accept Christ as your savior, according to my understanding of the Bible, you are saved.  Everything else follows.  It does not guarantee a happy life; although it does put a different perspective of joy in your heart.  It does not mean you suddenly have some superior ability to overcome sin; it only means that God has forgiven you.  It does not mean you are granted the privilege of condemning other that you interpret as not being saved; it means that you must have a new level of love for those people and are charged to encourage them to accept Christ as your savior.  We can make a new thread on what salvation means if you want but to put it more simply… the only thing that guarantees your salvation is accepting Christ as your savior.  The journey is what follows.  What if you accept Christ one day and die the next without being to experience this journey?  Are you saved?  I would say absolutely… YES!  But only God knows each heart.  It’s not up to me to say someone is or isn’t saved.  Doing so is presumptuous and arrogant to think you know what God knows in terms of salvation.
> 
> Me?  I believe I am saved even though I have lived a questionable life along the way.  None of that has ever caused me to lose sight of who God and Jesus are in my life.  I don’t look toward other people to bring me to God.  I don’t allow peoples’ criticisms of judgments to cause me to forget who God is.  I feel like my journey has brought me to a place that has made me realize man is the antithesis of God.  People have let me down time and time again; but God has never.  I have life.  I have food.  I am clothed.  I have a great home and an awesome family.  An when I look at pictures of the poor folks starving in places of Africa, yet they still are able to play happily and smile and show more joy in their lives than spoiled people like Americans, I know there is a God.  My journey has taught me how to be humble and thankful for all that I have because it is more than I deserve given the rest of the world.
> 
> Wasn’t that a long-winded rant.  Sorry.  Hope that answered your question at least from my poorly articulate point-of-view.



Very well stated Psyops!


----------



## wxtornado

PsyOps said:


> I can only give you my answer from a Christian point of view.  I wont elaborate on the “well what about those that believe in the Islamic faith or Buddhists?”  God will deal with them in His own way that I can’t and wont elaborate on except to say, according to the bible I believe in they are not saved.



Did you know that if you were born in Saudi Arabia, you'd most likely be a Muslim today?  Just sayin.....


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> Do you think simply being on the journey guarantees your salvation?


Not normally but, if you endure (stay) to the end it does. If you turn away at some point and *do not return to God's way of living*, you probably are not saved. 
We're all on a journey but I for one have no doubt that I am saved. I've had struggles in my 20 years of being truly saved but I never turned away from God. I get upset with Him and ask "why" also. We butt heads now & then but I never want to leave Christianity. My lifestyle indicates that I am saved and have been changed from what I was.  


PsyOps said:


> I wont elaborate on the “well what about those that believe in the Islamic faith or Buddhists?”  God will deal with them in His own way that I can’t and wont elaborate on except to say, according to the bible I believe in they are not saved.
> 
> It’s not up to me to say someone is or isn’t saved.  Doing so is presumptuous and arrogant to think you know what God knows in terms of salvation.


PsyOps, you said the first statement, then you said the second one. I'm confused. Can you clarify this for me? Thanks.
The reason I ask is because, after speaking and deeply inquiring about a cult persons god, if they told me they believe in the god of Islam or Buddah, I'd surely tell them that they weren't saved. It's part of my reason for knowing the Bible so I can discern their need for a Savior.
As far as the Catholics go, it's a case by case thing. I have to hear what they say and even then it's a tough call on some. 
I'll say this once more: It's not that I'm trying to judge anyone, it's just my concern for their knowing what it really takes to be saved. The devil is clever and subtle. He can hide in the teachings of any church and lead folks astray. My job is to weed them out! I've dealt with a LOT of people who claim Christianity but their words & actions claim worldliness.


----------



## Starman3000m

wxtornado said:


> Did you know that if you were born in Saudi Arabia, you'd most likely be a Muslim today?  Just sayin.....



Sure. Islam began in Saudi Arabia and all children born to Muslims are automatically a Muslim. No ifs, ands, or buts. The same goes for children born in any other Islamic country not just Saudi Arabia. They are automatically Muslims and are taught to deny that Jesus was The Divine Son of God and Saviour of mankind.

You also may know that it is forbidden for a Muslim to leave the faith. 
Should they decide to leave Islam at a later time in life they are considered "apostate" and are to be killed for doing so through the teachings of Muhammad and by Shari'a Law.

By contrast, a person becomes a Born-Again Christian through understanding the need for a Saviour, believing the accounts of who Jesus is and then making a willful decision to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour of his/her life. There are many Muslims who have risked their lives and have left Islam to find Salvation through Christ.


----------



## Radiant1

PsyOps said:


> If you accept Christ as your savior, according to my understanding of the Bible, you are saved.
> 
> But only God knows each heart.  It’s not up to me to say someone is or isn’t saved.  Doing so is presumptuous and arrogant to think you know what God knows in terms of salvation.



I do appreciate your thoughts. I agree, it is presumptuous. Your two statements above, however, don't jive.



ItalianScallion said:


> Not normally but, if you endure (stay) to the end it does. If you turn away at some point and *do not return to God's way of living*, you *probably are not saved*.
> We're all on a journey but I for one have no doubt that I am saved. I've had struggles in my 20 years of being truly saved but I never turned away from God. I get upset with Him and ask "why" also. We butt heads now & then but I never want to leave Christianity. My lifestyle indicates that I am saved and have been changed from what I was.



"Probably" is yet another term such as "chances are" that implies you, like baydoll, don't really know for sure. If it's not clear cut for others, how can it be clear cut for you?

As you've said, you don't know if you've endured UNTIL THE END; therefore, ones salvation is not assured along The Way. Now, you can try to tell me you know what you will do in the future, but if you do, I'll call BS.



ItalianScallion said:


> I'll say this once more: It's not that I'm trying to judge anyone, it's just my concern for their knowing what it really takes to be saved. The devil is clever and subtle. He can hide in the teachings of any church and lead folks astray. My job is to weed them out! I've dealt with a LOT of people who claim Christianity but their words & actions claim worldliness.



Please allow me to rephrase for you: The devil is clever and subtle and can hide in the teachings of any church *or person*.

You have your own teachings IS, so that could mean you. Just sayin'.


So, from my conversations today I have learned that:

1) Accepting Christ as your Lord and Savior (or being "born again") is not enough to assure salvation, one has to keep plugging away.
2) Exhibiting fruits of the Holy Spirit are not enough to assure salvation, atheists can do the same and we all judge those fruits differently.
3) The journey itself is not an assurance of salvation, for we do not know our future and what it holds.

I really can only come to one rational conclusion. No one is *guaranteed *salvation whether one be born again or not. 

For those who are not already aware ... I am a born-again Catholic. No doubt that presents a conundrum for some of you.


----------



## PsyOps

wxtornado said:


> Did you know that if you were born in Saudi Arabia, you'd most likely be a Muslim today?  Just sayin.....



God has a funny way of making things work out doesn't He?

But if your theory were true, you live in a predominately Christian country and you aren't a Christian.  :shrug:


----------



## PsyOps

Radiant1 said:


> I do appreciate your thoughts. I agree, it is presumptuous. Your two statements above, however, don't jive.



They jive if you read it correctly.  In my first statement you said “*IF* you accept Christ…”  A person can tell you anything they want but only God truly knows if that person has accepted Christ.  So it’s not my place to say if that person is saved or not.


----------



## Radiant1

PsyOps said:


> They jive if you read it correctly.  In my first statement you said “*IF* you accept Christ…”  A person can tell you anything they want but only God truly knows if that person has accepted Christ.  So it’s not my place to say if that person is saved or not.



Fair enough, but doesn't that include you? I guess I'm thinking that humans have a tendency to delude themselves. Like my friend in my original inquiry...she really did believe it the first two times. Maybe you really believe it but are wrong too? 

See, this is part of the reason why I reject the notion of born again assured salvation. When it comes down to it, it's based on one's feelings and the explanations are such that when broken down to their fundamentals they make no sense.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> I do appreciate your thoughts. I agree, it is presumptuous. Your two statements above, however, don't jive.
> "Probably" is yet another term such as "chances are" that implies you, like baydoll, don't really know for sure. If it's not clear cut for others, how can it be clear cut for you?
> As you've said, you don't know if you've endured UNTIL THE END; therefore, ones salvation is not assured along The Way. Now, you can try to tell me you know what you will do in the future, but if you do, I'll call BS.


My statements "do jive'. I'm talking about my salvation and someone elses. I know for sure that I am saved and will not be lost. My faith is that strong. 
As far as someone elses, all I have to go by is what they say and how they act. Notice, earlier, I said "probably" about someone elses salvation not mine? 
If you aren't sure whether you're saved or not that's your fault and/or the result of bad teachings. You need to fix that before you leave earth. No one else can. God is not that trifle that He would leave you guessing about a life & death issue such as salvation. If your church doesn't teach this, you should leave it yesterday. 


			
				Radiant 1 said:
			
		

> So, from my conversations today I have learned that:
> 
> 1) Accepting Christ as your Lord and Savior (or being "born again") is not enough to assure salvation, one has to keep plugging away.
> 2) Exhibiting fruits of the Holy Spirit are not enough to assure salvation, atheists can do the same and we all judge those fruits differently.
> 3) The journey itself is not an assurance of salvation, for we do not know our future and what it holds.
> 
> I really can only come to one rational conclusion. No one is *guaranteed *salvation whether one be born again or not.
> For those who are not already aware ... I am a born-again Catholic. No doubt that presents a conundrum for some of you.


Sweet lady I actually pity you and your hard headedness. It seems that the only one telling you that your salvation cannot be certain is the devil and your church (which are one and the same if they teach that). 

1) Truly accepting Jesus will get you saved. The problem is that many do not want to do what God says. They want salvation and their total freedom from His laws and this cannot be. God spoke about this (enduring to the end) because of people who refuse to believe what He says and commit to Him.  
Some will try Christianity "on for size" and later not like it and walk away. God will not save, then lose anyone. He allows people to "try it on" so they can be sure whether they like it or not. If they leave, they were really NEVER saved. (1 John 2 v 19).
PsyOps said it well, that anyone can ask Christ into their lives and get baptized. It doesn't mean they're saved. Look at the JW's and Mormons: Their actions look convincing to outsiders but their doctrines are fatally flawed. (An easy call for me). A persons words and actions after claiming salvation (along with their beliefs) will give a good indication if they're saved or not. We certainly cannot judge everyones hearts but we can tell them what the requirements for salvation are even if they don't agree with us. 
2) That's why "WHAT" a person believes makes all the difference in the world.
3) For some weaker and more stubborn people it's not an assurance, you're right, but for many (like myself) it is.

According to Highlander you should NOT be born again and a Catholic. What do you think?


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> I guess I'm thinking that humans have a tendency to delude themselves. Like my friend in my original inquiry...she really did believe it the first two times. Maybe you really believe it but are wrong too?
> See, this is part of the reason why I reject the notion of born again assured salvation. When it comes down to it, it's based on one's feelings and the explanations are such that when broken down to their fundamentals they make no sense.



It is not based on ones feelings but their beliefs, words and actions as I said earlier. Radiant, I asked Jesus into my life in 1976 and 1982 and neither time did I get saved. Why? Because, although I believed who God was, my words and actions did not change to reflect my salvation. God knew I wasn't ready to be saved, so He did not force me to change. Your friend apparently did the same. Just praying a prayer does not make one a Christian. 
I asked Him into my life again in 1989 and immediately I knew I was changed that time. My words and actions changed drastically right then and there. That is true salvation. A person cannot remain the same after a real encounter with Christ. 

I'll quote you something off of my website. THE SPIRIT NET
These are some of the signs a person should see to indicate that they are saved and are growing as a Christian: (Look closely at #13) 
1)	You’re more aware of sins in your life
2)	Your reaction to sin is quick & followed by repentance
3)	Spiritual battles are stronger but you know that they must happen
4)	You view trials & temptations as opportunities for growth
5)	Serving God becomes a priority & an honor
6)	You realize that everything comes from or through God
7)	It takes more to upset you than it did before
8)	You want to spend more time doing God’s will
9)	You are eager to share your faith & experiences with others
10)	Your desire to obey God is stronger and the desire to sin is less
11)	You sense God’s presence & talk to Him more each day
12)	You look forward to prayer & Bible reading.
13)	When the Bible tells you that something you believe is wrong, you  
             willingly accept it and readjust your thinking on the matter.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> So, from my conversations today I have learned that:
> 
> 1) Accepting Christ as your Lord and Savior (or being "born again") is not enough to assure salvation, one has to keep plugging away.



Being born-again is the spiritual conversion of a believer and guarantees Salvation according to the Promise of Jesus through His Atoning Blood. One is then empowered to begin a new journey whereby the strength in living for God is not of one's own ability but it is the indwelling Holy Spirit that gives the strength to change from a carnal life to a spiritual life.

*Romans Chapter 8, verses:*
5: For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6: For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7: Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8: So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9: But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10: And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11: But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
12: Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13: For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
14: For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
15: For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16:* The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:*
17: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.



> 2) Exhibiting fruits of the Holy Spirit are not enough to assure salvation, atheists can do the same and we all judge those fruits differently.



*Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;* (Titus 3:5)

Exhibiting fruit of the Spirit is the result of being Born-Again not what is having to be done in order to "earn" Salvation. Here are the fruit of the Spirit according to the Holy Bible:

*Galatians Chapter 5, verses:*
22: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23: Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24: And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25: If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
26: Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.



> 3) The journey itself is not an assurance of salvation, for we do not know our future and what it holds.



For a true Born-Again individual in Christ, the journey in living a new spiritual life does not guarantee that there won't be trials nor tribulations but the Promise of God and the witness of the presence of the indwelling Holy Spirit of God gives one the assurance that without a doubt one is a Child of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

*First John, Chapter 5, verses:*
19: And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.
20: And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
21: Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (Romans 8:16)

*Galatians Chapter 3, verses:*

24: Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25: But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26: For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27: For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29: *And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.*



> I really can only come to one rational conclusion. No one is *guaranteed *salvation whether one be born again or not.



That is your conclusion. The conclusion of the New Testament Jesus Christ  is that one is guaranteed Salvation through faith in Him alone.

*And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand*. (John 10:28-29)



> For those who are not already aware ... I am a born-again Catholic. No doubt that presents a conundrum for some of you.



Please describe your definition of "born-again Catholic" and whether you still view the papacy as infallible, still regard Mary as Mediatrix and whether you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church on earth that guarantees salvation through being baptized into its doctrinal theology as an infant.


----------



## baydoll

Originally Posted by camily  
If you have real salvation then you know without a doubt where you're going when you die. End of story. 



> So, let me get this straight...I have real salvation if I'm sure I'm going to heaven? My friend thought so too, but it turns out you say she was lying. Hmmm.



Again, your friend is a tare, Radiant. Of course she's going to lie to you...she isn't Saved. She is deceiving you. 


Quote:
Originally Posted by baydoll  
Do you know what the Fruit of the Spirit are, Radiant? 


> Yes, and? Do you always exhibit those fruits?



And what are they? Yes I do. Do you?


Quote:
Originally Posted by baydoll  
Precisely.  If you doubt your salvation you really don't have a clue. 



> You're right. I don't have a clue, because I am not aware of what I will or will not do in the future before I die.



So in other words, you're not trusting in Jesus at all..you're trusting in YOU.  



> Psst...guess what...neither do you.



Pssst....guess what....I never said I did. 


Quote:
Originally Posted by baydoll  
Did you repent of your sins at the time of your baptism? Believe in Christ with all your heart? Trust in what He did on the Cross to save you? 



> I do that on a regular basis. Am I wasting my time? Should I have only done this once and I'm in?



That's not what I asked you. At the time of your baptism, is this what you did? 


Quote:
Originally Posted by baydoll  
Are you working FOR your salvation or working it OUT, Radiant? 



> Did you read what I wrote? If so, then you have your answer. If you question it, I suggest you take it up with St. Paul.



So how does one work OUT something they don't have, Radiant?


----------



## wxtornado

PsyOps said:


> God has a funny way of making things work out doesn't He?
> 
> But if your theory were true, you live in a predominately Christian country and you aren't a Christian.  :shrug:



Wasn't really putting forth any theory.  Fact is, you would probably be worshiping a different God if you were born in the jungles of Papua, New Guinea.  Just sayin....


----------



## baydoll

And Catholics don't lie?

And of course you don't ever lie either, right? 



> Radiant: The issue here is, are YOU lying to me? ?



What would I be lying about, Radiant? 



> Radiant: Or better yet, are YOU lying to yourself much like my friend did? How do you really know?



Did you not read my previous posts to you? The difference between you and me is that I BELIEVE in God. I BELIEVE in what God said. I TRUST in HIM that He saved me. I do not trust in myself because I cannot save myself. I trust and believe in HIM when He said:




> Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,  that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.  "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.  Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. John 3






> Radiant: Oh, that's right, your fruits.
> 
> But how do you judge that you actually exhibit such fruit?



Again, do you know what the fruit of the Spirit are, Radiant? And how do YOU judge that YOU actually exhibit such fruit? 



> RadiantDo you pat yourself on the back? Do you rely on others to do so?



Do you see me being a people pleaser on here, Radiant? Actually I am putting myself on line even being on here because the majority of the people on Southern Maryland Online hate my guts. So yeah there's a lot of people patting me on my back here. As for patting myself on the back? For what? Having people hate me and call me names? Say false things about me or what I said? Yeah I pat myself on the back for that each and every day. 

Do you? 



> Radiant: Or, are you waiting for God to tell you on that great and terrible day?



God already HAS told me, Radiant.


----------



## baydoll

wxtornado said:


> Wasn't really putting forth any theory.  Fact is, you would probably be worshiping a different God if you were born in the jungles of Papu, New Guinea.  Just sayin....



How do you know that ALL of them are worshipping a different god? Have you talked to each individual person in that jungle?


----------



## wxtornado

baydoll said:


> How do you know that ALL of them are worshipping a different god? Have you talked to each individual person in that jungle?




I never claimed all of them were.  I said "probably", and I'll go as far as "most likely".


----------



## baydoll

wxtornado said:


> I never claimed all of them were.  I said "probably", and I'll go as far as "most likely".




Through the history of mankind, God has ALWAYS saved a remnent (meaning a very small number) of people for Himself. Even in the darkest places on  this earth where no one knows His Name. 

God places Eternity in everyone's heart. Only those who truly and sincerely want to know about this Eternity does He reveals Himself to them. He is more than capable of doing so. 

Even to the person in the darkest deepest jungle.


----------



## itsbob

Think you're really righteous? Think you're pure in heart?
Well, I know I'm a million times as humble as thou art
I'm the pious guy the little Amlettes wanna be like
On my knees day and night scorin' points for the afterlife
So don't be vain and don't be whiny
Or else, my brother, I might have to get medieval on your heinie


If you all REALLY insist on serving your Lord and Saviour, might I suggest the above?


----------



## baydoll

itsbob said:


> Think you're really righteous? Think you're pure in heart?
> Well, I know I'm a million times as humble as thou art
> I'm the pious guy the little Amlettes wanna be like
> On my knees day and night scorin' points for the afterlife
> So don't be vain and don't be whiny
> Or else, my brother, I might have to get medieval on your heinie
> 
> 
> If you all REALLY insist on serving your Lord and Saviour, might I suggest the above?




None of us are perfect, Bob. And we will never be perfect this side of Heaven.  We Christians especially know this. 

Jesus saved me WHEN I was a horrible person, warts and all. Not only did He save me, but He saved me from that person I used to be. 

 He gives us a new heart and a new nature. The old has passed away; the new has come.

 But that does not mean He changed me completely in an instant. I still have a lot of the Old me deep inside. He has been faithful to show me those sinful things in my heart that I need to get rid of completely and yes one of them has been pride. That is just one of many. 

 I am far FAR from perfect BUT I am FAR from what I used to be. I look back at what I used to be and I am deeply ashamed. 

We each need to do some serious examination of OUR OWN HEARTS each and every moment of our lives.  

Do YOU do this,  Bob?


----------



## itsbob

baydoll said:


> We each need to do some serious examination of OUR OWN HEARTS each and every moment of our lives.
> 
> Do YOU do this,  Bob?



Yep, I just don't need a bible or Jesus, or the threat of eternity in hell to do it.

I do it because I'm generally a good person, without a reason,  and without the promise of a reward.  I won't perform for a doggy biscuit, I won't be good for the promise of heaven.  I'll be "good for goodness sake"

Being good only because you think there is reward at the end seems kind of insincere, and that you really are a bad person, putting on a facade so you can get what you think you deserve.

I'll be good because that's who I am, and who my parents raised me to be.


----------



## Starman3000m

itsbob said:


> Yep, I just don't need a bible or Jesus, or the threat of eternity in hell to do it.
> 
> I do it because I'm generally a good person, without a reason,  and without the promise of a reward.  I won't perform for a doggy biscuit, I won't be good for the promise of heaven.  I'll be "good for goodness sake"
> 
> Being good only because you think there is reward at the end seems kind of insincere, and that you really are a bad person, putting on a facade so you can get what you think you deserve.
> 
> I'll be good because that's who I am, and who my parents raised me to be.



Define "good" itsbob. Have never lied, cheated, had bad thoughts cross your mind even if you didn't act on them, said anything bad to anyone like call them derogatory names? So are you really "good" for goodness sake?

Not judging, just telling it like it is.


*What did Jesus say about being called "good" ?*

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered.* "No one is good—except God alone." (Mark 10:18) NIV*


----------



## itsbob

Starman3000m said:


> Define "good" itsbob. Have never lied, cheated, had bad thoughts cross your mind even if you didn't act on them, said anything bad to anyone like call them derogatory names? So are you really "good" for goodness sake?
> 
> Not judging, just telling it like it is.
> 
> 
> *What did Jesus say about being called "good" ?*
> 
> "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered.* "No one is good—except God alone." (Mark 10:18) NIV*



yeah I know.. those that don't understand how you can be good, always point to the bible as the definition of good.. and EVERYONE that is good has morals based on what the Bible says they are.. 

People were good before the bible.. they were even good before God gave Moses the rules to live by.

There are hardworking good people in the furthest reaches of this world, people that have never heard of the bible.

You're weak if you have to have a REASON to be good.. You're not really a good person if you are doing if for some promise of reward, you're just a poser, a fraud and self serving.


----------



## PsyOps

Radiant1 said:


> Fair enough, but doesn't that include you? I guess I'm thinking that humans have a tendency to delude themselves. Like my friend in my original inquiry...she really did believe it the first two times. Maybe you really believe it but are wrong too?
> 
> See, this is part of the reason why I reject the notion of born again assured salvation. When it comes down to it, it's based on one's feelings and the explanations are such that when broken down to their fundamentals they make no sense.



Let me ask you this… If being born again doesn’t assure our salvation, what does?  There are some primary passages in the bible that deal with our salvation:



> "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)





> Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." (John 3:3-8)





> For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith— and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no-one can boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)



I happen to think these passages are key in telling us how we are saved.  

You have to accept (believe in) Christ.  This belief is not just an acknowledgement.  The translated word “believe” from the Greek to English actually means to surrender to or completely submit to.  

Being born again comes with this accepting of Chirst.  But I think it's impossible for us to really understand this.  We are humans living in a physical world.  We are not equipped to understand this “spirit” thing.  We rely on things our physical senses tell us that something exists.  Over the millennia humans have lost the sense that allows us to feel this “spirit”.  I think that’s why Jesus said "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'”  He was trying to convey that he doesn’t really expect us to understand this “spirit” thing.  Just understand that we have to accept Christ and if we live according to His teachings the spirit will be there whether we can feel it or not.  I happen to think this is a long-growing process that doesn’t have this BIG eye-opening event; that you feel this big whooshing spirit sensation that a lot of people claim they have had when they became “born again”.  If that happens for some people that’s fine, it doesn’t happen that way for everyone and it didn’t for me.  To me this “born again” thing is a part that accompanies your acceptance of Christ.  It’s a part that God instills in us that affects each of us differently, but is not necessarily felt.

The last part to consider is that we can’t earn our way into heaven.  No matter how many great things we do in our lives, if we haven’t accept Christ we do not obtain salvation.  You are not born again unless you accept Christ.  There is no “spirit” in you unless you accept Christ.  Is all comes back to that simple passage in John 3:16.


----------



## PsyOps

itsbob said:


> Yep, I just don't need a bible or Jesus, or the threat of eternity in hell to do it.
> 
> I do it because I'm generally a good person, without a reason,  and without the promise of a reward.  I won't perform for a doggy biscuit, I won't be good for the promise of heaven.  I'll be "good for goodness sake"
> 
> Being good only because you think there is reward at the end seems kind of insincere, and that you really are a bad person, putting on a facade so you can get what you think you deserve.
> 
> I'll be good because that's who I am, and who my parents raised me to be.



I didn't accept God in my life for some reward.  I did so because I was compelled to.  Don’t ask me to explain this because I can’t.  And there is a difference between being good and doing good things.

And not everyone was BLESSED with parents to raise them with this “good”.  Some were raised abused all their childhood lives.  And all they know is anger, abuse and chaos.  I think it’s awesome that you do good things for goodness sake.  God has brought millions out of this abusive chaos and given them peace.  Do YOU truly have peace?


----------



## Starman3000m

itsbob said:


> yeah I know.. those that don't understand how you can be good, always point to the bible as the definition of good.. and EVERYONE that is good has morals based on what the Bible says they are..
> 
> People were good before the bible.. they were even good before God gave Moses the rules to live by.
> 
> There are hardworking good people in the furthest reaches of this world, people that have never heard of the bible.
> 
> You're weak if you have to have a REASON to be good.. You're not really a good person if you are doing if for some promise of reward, you're just a poser, a fraud and self serving.



You still didn't answer my question itsbob! 

Please define what "good" means to you.



			
				itsbob said:
			
		

> People were good before the bible...they were even good before God gave Moses the rules to live by.



Oh, really! *So in itsbob's opinion:*
- No one stole from one another? 
- No one hated and killed someone that they considered an enemy? 
- No one cheated and defrauded others?
- No one ever told a lie? 
- No one coveted their neighbor's belongings?
- No one felt jealousy and envy toward one another?
- No one was ever prejudice against someone else?

So, where did we get the guidelines to help control civilization?


----------



## itsbob

PsyOps said:


> Do YOU truly have peace?



Yep...


----------



## itsbob

Starman3000m said:


> So, where did we get the guidelines to help control civilization?




Man devised the thought of hell as way to control civilization..

If most didn't think there would be consequences for their actions, there would be anarchy.  Basically the same reason we have prisons..  No difference.  

Now that we have the ten commandments you are right..   


There is no more murder

No one covets another mans property.. 

No one steals..

WHEW.. Thank GOD for those commandments!!


Using that as an argument to being good prior to the bible is just as ludicrous as me using it to point out there's still bad people after.  There is no connection, and in the end the Bible and the ten commandments had NO impact on humanity.  

There are still good people, and there are still bad people, just as there were before the Bible and the Ten Commandments.


----------



## PsyOps

itsbob said:


> Yep...



So therefore because you were able to obtain this "God-less" peace, it makes no sense that others don't without God in their lives?  And for many it goes beyond just looking to God for obtaining peace.  For folks like me it's about thanking God for the peace and blessing I do have.  I recognize where these things come from; and it's not from some spontaneous, random booming, come from nowhere event.


----------



## PsyOps

itsbob said:


> Man devised the thought of hell as way to control civilization.​




Who devised things like peace, free will, love, etc… ?​


----------



## itsbob

PsyOps said:


> Who devised things like peace, free will, love, etc… ?



The apostles..



John





Paul








Geroge




and




RINGO!!


----------



## itsbob

PsyOps said:


> Who devised things like peace, free will, love, etc… ?



And again, your suggesting none of this existed before Moses lived to the age of what?  600 700 years??

Or before the 10 commandments... 

You'd think that we would have never made it out of the Garden before Adam split Eve's skull open..


----------



## Starman3000m

itsbob said:


> Man devised the thought of hell as way to control civilization..
> 
> If most didn't think there would be consequences for their actions, there would be anarchy.  Basically the same reason we have prisons..  No difference.
> 
> Now that we have the ten commandments you are right..
> 
> 
> There is no more murder
> 
> No one covets another mans property..
> 
> No one steals..
> 
> WHEW.. Thank GOD for those commandments!!
> 
> 
> Using that as an argument to being good prior to the bible is just as ludicrous as me using it to point out there's still bad people after.  There is no connection, and in the end the Bible and the ten commandments had NO impact on humanity.
> 
> There are still good people, and there are still bad people, just as there were before the Bible and the Ten Commandments.



Wrong itsbob! There is a connection - but apparently you can't see it my friend.

*Laws establish Order and Penalties for those who get out of Order.*

With the Ten Commandments, there has been the ability to base man's laws around them and establish the Authority to enforce breaking the laws. Additionally, there is the ability to impose appropriate penalties that are a result of a person breaking those laws.

Whose laws do you think our primary laws were derived from if not the Ten Commandments?


----------



## Starman3000m

itsbob said:


> And again, your suggesting none of this existed before Moses lived to the age of what?  600 700 years??
> 
> Or before the 10 commandments...
> 
> You'd think that we would have never made it out of the Garden before Adam split Eve's skull open..



The Genesis account states that before Moses, there was a period of lawlessnes, complete chaos and evil that permeated this earth. that's why it grieved God for even making mankind but one man found favor (Noah) and when Noah preached repentance and Salvation no one listened. The people in the era of Adam and Eve were disobedient and unbelieving of having any civil order. Evil prevailed in the majority by the order of Satanic influence. That's why God destroyed the first generation of mankind through the Great Flood. But then again, you probably don't believe that either.


----------



## wxtornado

Starman3000m said:


> That's why God destroyed the first generation of mankind through the Great Flood. But then again, you probably don't believe that either.



The Deluge: A punishment inflicted on the human race by an all-knowing God, who, through not having foreseen the wickedness of men, repented of having made them, and drowned them once for all to make them better - an act which, as we all know, was accompanied by the greatest success.


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> My statements "do jive'. I'm talking about my salvation and someone elses. I know for sure that I am saved and will not be lost. My faith is that strong.



That comment was directed to PsyOps, not you. You may perhaps know that you are saved at this moment; however, you cannot know you will be saved at the time of your death. Again, you are not able to predict what you will do in the future. You are not assured heaven.



ItalianScallion said:


> As far as someone elses, all I have to go by is what they say and how they act. Notice, earlier, I said "probably" about someone elses salvation not mine?
> If you aren't sure whether you're saved or not that's your fault and/or the result of bad teachings. You need to fix that before you leave earth. No one else can. God is not that trifle that He would leave you guessing about a life & death issue such as salvation. If your church doesn't teach this, you should leave it yesterday.



You're right. One needs to fix that before they leave Earth. One needs to hope that they will have participated with God's grace and be in a state of grace at the time of their death.



ItalianScallion said:


> Sweet lady I actually pity you and your hard headedness. It seems that the only one telling you that your salvation cannot be certain is the devil and your church (which are one and the same if they teach that).



Reason and logic alone tell me that I cannot be assured of my salvation. If reason and logic are of the devil, then please do pray for me.



ItalianScallion said:


> 1) Truly accepting Jesus will get you saved. The problem is that many do not want to do what God says. They want salvation and their total freedom from His laws and this cannot be. God spoke about this (enduring to the end) because of people who refuse to believe what He says and commit to Him.



Exactly.



ItalianScallion said:


> Some will try Christianity "on for size" and later not like it and walk away. God will not save, then lose anyone. He allows people to "try it on" so they can be sure whether they like it or not. If they leave, they were really NEVER saved. (1 John 2 v 19).



God will not save then lose anyone, but yet He will let someone "try it on" and then lose them? 



ItalianScallion said:


> PsyOps said it well, that anyone can ask Christ into their lives and get baptized. It doesn't mean they're saved.



Agreed.



ItalianScallion said:


> Look at the JW's and Mormons: Their actions look convincing to outsiders but their doctrines are fatally flawed. (An easy call for me). A persons words and actions after claiming salvation (along with their beliefs) will give a good indication if they're saved or not.



What you really mean is, "A persons words and actions after claiming salvation (along with my beliefs) will give me a good indication of whether I think them saved or not."



ItalianScallion said:


> We certainly cannot judge everyones hearts but we can tell them what the requirements for salvation are even if they don't agree with us.



Agreed.



ItalianScallion said:


> 2) That's why "WHAT" a person believes makes all the difference in the world.



And that WHAT is exactly as you would have it, yes?



ItalianScallion said:


> 3) For some weaker and more stubborn people it's not an assurance, you're right, but for many (like myself) it is.



Because you are never weak and stubborn, yes?



ItalianScallion said:


> According to Highlander you should NOT be born again and a Catholic. What do you think?



I think Highlander has no conundrum with it, as you might.


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> It is not based on ones feelings but their beliefs, words and actions as I said earlier.



Ok.



ItalianScallion said:


> Radiant, I asked Jesus into my life in 1976 and 1982 and neither time did I get saved. Why? Because, although I believed who God was, my words and actions did not change to reflect my salvation. God knew I wasn't ready to be saved, so He did not force me to change. Your friend apparently did the same.



You were just "trying it on" the first 2 times?

God does not force you to change. Your change requires your free will and cooperation.



ItalianScallion said:


> Just praying a prayer does not make one a Christian.



Agreed.



ItalianScallion said:


> I asked Him into my life again in 1989 and immediately I knew I was changed that time. My words and actions changed drastically right then and there. That is true salvation.



Your true salvation remains to be seen. Please do keep cooperating.



ItalianScallion said:


> A person cannot remain the same after a real encounter with Christ.



Agreed.



ItalianScallion said:


> I'll quote you something off of my website. THE SPIRIT NET
> These are some of the signs a person should see to indicate that they are saved and are growing as a Christian: (Look closely at #13)
> 1)	You’re more aware of sins in your life
> 2)	Your reaction to sin is quick & followed by repentance
> 3)	Spiritual battles are stronger but you know that they must happen
> 4)	You view trials & temptations as opportunities for growth
> 5)	Serving God becomes a priority & an honor
> 6)	You realize that everything comes from or through God
> 7)	It takes more to upset you than it did before
> 8)	You want to spend more time doing God’s will
> 9)	You are eager to share your faith & experiences with others
> 10)	Your desire to obey God is stronger and the desire to sin is less
> 11)	You sense God’s presence & talk to Him more each day
> 12)	You look forward to prayer & Bible reading.
> 13)	When the Bible tells you that something you believe is wrong, you
> willingly accept it and readjust your thinking on the matter.



It sounds lovely. Regarding #13, you know I'm going to ask you whose interpretation of the Bible aren't you? And :sigh:, we will then have to go into the whole discussion, again, of fallibilty and authority.  

Please, let us not go there again ... at least for another month.


----------



## itsbob

Starman3000m said:


> Wrong itsbob! There is a connection - but apparently you can't see it my friend.
> 
> *Laws establish Order and Penalties for those who get out of Order.*
> 
> With the Ten Commandments, there has been the ability to base man's laws around them and establish the Authority to enforce breaking the laws. Additionally, there is the ability to impose appropriate penalties that are a result of a person breaking those laws.
> 
> Whose laws do you think our primary laws were derived from if not the Ten Commandments?



Really?  So what commandments did the Pygmies derive their laws from??

The Romans??

The Greeks??

The Chinese??

The Japanese??

The Africans??

The South Americans??

The Native Americans??

The Hawaiian??

Should I go on??

OH LOOK. LAWS WITHOUT BIBLES!!!  The sacrilege!!  THOSE HEATHENS!!


----------



## Toxick

wxtornado said:


> The Deluge: A punishment inflicted on the human race by an all-knowing God, who, through not having foreseen the wickedness of men, repented of having made them, and drowned them once for all to make them better - an act which, as we all know, was accompanied by the greatest success.




How long have you been waiting for the right moment to use this nugget?


----------



## ItalianScallion

Highlander said:


> Let's educate ourselves to try to better understand where our 2-3 BAC come from.  There seem to be some phycological isues involved that we should consider.
> Born Again Brainwashing
> How old is this born again Christian cult that is in the USA?
> Are Her Born Again Christian Relatives Caught Up in a Cult?


Still waiting for my answer...Is it wrong to be born again Highlander? 


Radiant1 said:


> Reason and logic alone tell me that I cannot be assured of my salvation. If reason and logic are of the devil, then please do pray for me.
> At times they are, so I will, because I love your confused little self.
> God will not save then lose anyone, but yet He will let someone "try it on" and then lose them?
> No. He will let them try it on but not save them because He knows it is NOT what they truly want. So in essence, since He never had them, He didn't lose them. He allowed them to exercise their free will choice and He honored it.
> What you really mean is, "A persons words and actions after claiming salvation (along with my beliefs) will give me a good indication of whether I think them saved or not."
> I'll agree with you here.





Radiant1 said:


> You were just "trying it on" the first 2 times?
> Yes I was. If I wasn't, my lifestyle and words would have changed accordingly but they didn't. I was a big time sinner, a drunk, an adulterer, a sex fiend, and I taught sailors some new cuss words. I was one of the worst. In 1976 and 1982, I asked Jesus into my life because I was depressed but, within a few days, I was right back to doing all of the above so, yes, I tried it on and didn't like it...then. When I asked Him in 1989, I was ready and He responded by saving me for real that time.
> 
> It sounds lovely. Regarding #13, you know I'm going to ask you whose interpretation of the Bible aren't you? And :sigh:, we will then have to go into the whole discussion, again, of fallibilty and authority.  Please, let us not go there again ... at least for another month.


As you wish my friend. Let me just say this to you. 
There is only one right way to interpret the Bible but there are many wrong ways. Scripture explains itself by relating some verses to others (context).  PM me in a month  I'll talk to you on this, then.


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> Being born-again is the spiritual conversion of a believer and guarantees Salvation according to the Promise of Jesus through His Atoning Blood. One is then empowered to begin a new journey whereby the strength in living for God is not of one's own ability but it is the indwelling Holy Spirit that gives the strength to change from a carnal life to a spiritual life.



I would agree, except for the gurantee part. 

You cannot utilize the strength given to you unless you freely participate with it. That participation is an ongoing process in your journey.



Starman3000m said:


> *Romans Chapter 8, verses:*
> 5: For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
> 6: For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
> 7: Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
> 8: So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
> 9: But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
> 10: And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
> 11: But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
> 12: Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
> 13: For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
> 14: For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
> 15: For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
> 16:* The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:*
> 17: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.



Who could argue it? Certainly not I.

Christian life is the experience of constant challenges, and with the Holy Spirit's presence within us we enjoy a new relationship with God. It's beautiful (but it doesn't speak about one's assurance of salvation).



Starman3000m said:


> *Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;* (Titus 3:5)
> 
> Who could argue it? Certainly not I. However, please allow me to put Titus in it's proper context.
> 
> 4 But when the kindness and generous love of God our savior appeared,
> 5 not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit,
> 6 whom he richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ our savior,
> 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and *become heirs in hope of eternal life*.



Why does St. Paul exhort us to hope in eternal life if we already have been assured of it?



Starman3000m said:


> [Exhibiting fruit of the Spirit is the result of being Born-Again not what is having to be done in order to "earn" Salvation.



Agreed.



Starman3000m said:


> Here are the fruit of the Spirit according to the Holy Bible:
> 
> *Galatians Chapter 5, verses:*
> 22: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
> 23: Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
> 24: And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
> 25: If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
> 26: Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.



Who could argue it? Certainly not I.



Starman3000m said:


> For a true Born-Again individual in Christ, the journey in living a new spiritual life does not guarantee that there won't be trials nor tribulations but the Promise of God and the witness of the presence of the indwelling Holy Spirit of God gives one the assurance that without a doubt one is a Child of God through faith in Jesus Christ.



Agreed. 



Starman3000m said:


> *First John, Chapter 5, verses:*
> 19: And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.
> 20: And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
> 21: Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.
> 
> The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (Romans 8:16)
> 
> *Galatians Chapter 3, verses:*
> 
> 24: Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
> 25: But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
> 26: For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
> 27: For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
> 28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
> 29: *And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.*



Again, who could argue it? Agreed.



Starman3000m said:


> That is your conclusion. The conclusion of the New Testament Jesus Christ  is that one is guaranteed Salvation through faith in Him alone.



You mean your conclusion of the New Testament. I have mine, and you have yours. Funny how that works, which leads me to believe that one must have an authority to turn to in times of various conclusions.



Starman3000m said:


> *And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand*. (John 10:28-29)



No man is able to pluck anyone from God's hand but themselves. God requires your free cooperation with His grace. I think you would agree, yes?



Starman3000m said:


> Please describe your definition of "born-again Catholic"



I have experienced several spiritual rebirths that opened and furthered my relationship with God. I am a Catholic. Hence, I am a born-again Catholic.



Starman3000m said:


> and whether you still view the papacy as infallible, still regard Mary as Mediatrix and whether you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church on earth that guarantees salvation through being baptized into its doctrinal theology as an infant.



I view the papacy in accordance with the Magisterium of the Church to be infallible regarding faith and morals as promised by Christ. 

I highly regard Mary as one who said yes to God ("may it be done to me according to Your will") and without her cooperation the Son of God would not have been born to die for our sins.

I have come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church was instituted by Christ Himself, and is guided by the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ. Christian baptism does not guarantee one's salvation, as the Catholic Church itself would agree.


----------



## ItalianScallion

wxtornado said:


> The Deluge: A punishment inflicted on the human race by an all-knowing God, who, through not having foreseen the wickedness of men, repented of having made them, and drowned them once for all to make them better - an act which, as we all know, was accompanied by the greatest success.


It's no different than our laws today. Our?? government makes laws to protect us from ourselves and others. So did God. Free will meant freedom to do wrong. 
And, if you think that "Deluge" was a show, wait until He comes back (for the same reason) with a fire show...


----------



## Starman3000m

itsbob said:


> Really?  So what commandments did the Pygmies derive their laws from??
> 
> The Romans??
> 
> The Greeks??
> 
> The Chinese??
> 
> The Japanese??
> 
> The Africans??
> 
> The South Americans??
> 
> The Native Americans??
> 
> The Hawaiian??
> 
> Should I go on??
> 
> OH LOOK. LAWS WITHOUT BIBLES!!!  The sacrilege!!  THOSE HEATHENS!!



*Without Bibles:** The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.* (Psalm 19:1)

The Pygmies: How do they live? 
The 'Pygmy' peoples are forest dwellers, and know the forest, its plants and its animals intimately. They live by hunting animals such as antelopes, pigs and monkeys, fishing, and gathering honey, wild yams, berries and other plants. *For them, the forest is a kindly personal god, who provides for their needs.* All Pygmy groups have close ties to neighbouring farming villagers, and work for them or exchange forest produce for crops and other goods. At its best this is a fair exchange, but it can involve exploitation of the Pygmies, especially where they have lost control of the forest and its resources.

African Tribes - Pygmies People


Interesting that "without Bibles" ancient tribes had some sense of "spirituality" and that there must be a Great Creator that provides for their needs. Those in tune with the Spirit were in tune with the Creator.
God has always had a way for revealing Himself to all people.


----------



## Starman3000m

ItalianScallion said:


> It's no different than our laws today. Our?? government makes laws to protect us from ourselves and others. So did God. Free will meant freedom to do wrong.
> And, if you think that "Deluge" was a show, wait until He comes back (for the same reason) with a fire show...



Amen!

*Luke Chapter 17:*
26: *And as it was in the days of Noe,* so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27: They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28: *Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot;* they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29: But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom *it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.*
30: *Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.*


----------



## Radiant1

baydoll said:


> Again, your friend is a tare, Radiant. Of course she's going to lie to you...she isn't Saved. She is deceiving you.



That could be true, and it could be true regarding you as well. :shrug:



baydoll said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by baydoll
> Do you know what the Fruit of the Spirit are, Radiant?
> 
> And what are they? Yes I do. Do you?



You may not be aware of my background and that's okay, but do not patronize me. If I say I know them, I know them.

I'd like to think I exhibit the fruits of the spirit; however, I am far from perfect, so will leave it up to God to judge whether I truly do or not.



baydoll said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by baydoll
> Precisely.  If you doubt your salvation you really don't have a clue.
> 
> So in other words, you're not trusting in Jesus at all..you're trusting in YOU.



I trust that the grace is given to me, I do not trust that I will always participate with It.



baydoll said:


> Pssst....guess what....I never said I did.



Great, then you agree with me that you have no assurance of salvation. 



baydoll said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by baydoll
> Did you repent of your sins at the time of your baptism? Believe in Christ with all your heart? Trust in what He did on the Cross to save you?
> 
> That's not what I asked you. At the time of your baptism, is this what you did?



At my baptism, it was done on my behalf. At my confirmation, I did so of my own accord and with great pleasure and continue to do so. 



baydoll said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by baydoll
> Are you working FOR your salvation or working it OUT, Radiant?
> 
> So how does one work OUT something they don't have, Radiant?



In the hopes that one will have it. I suggest you do the same as St. Paul exhorts you to do.



baydoll said:


> And Catholics don't lie?
> 
> And of course you don't ever lie either, right?
> 
> What would I be lying about, Radiant?



About your own salvation, and the mechanism for being saved. If my friend was mistaken and was a tare without knowing it, then perhaps you are too.



baydoll said:


> Did you not read my previous posts to you? The difference between you and me is that I BELIEVE in God. I BELIEVE in what God said. I TRUST in HIM that He saved me. I do not trust in myself because I cannot save myself. I trust and believe in HIM when He said:



You are heavily implying that I do not believe in God and that I do not trust in Him. Those are extremely bold words. I highly suggest you pray over that.



baydoll said:


> Again, do you know what the fruit of the Spirit are, Radiant? And how do YOU judge that YOU actually exhibit such fruit?



Answer my question please. As for my answer, see above.



baydoll said:


> Do you see me being a people pleaser on here, Radiant? Actually I am putting myself on line even being on here because the majority of the people on Southern Maryland Online hate my guts.



Heh, you don't say.



baydoll said:


> So yeah there's a lot of people patting me on my back here. As for patting myself on the back? For what? Having people hate me and call me names? Say false things about me or what I said? Yeah I pat myself on the back for that each and every day.



Um hmm.



baydoll said:


> Do you?



Obviously not.



baydoll said:


> God already HAS told me, Radiant.



So you say. :shrug:

For the future, I would kindly ask you not to use my name quite so much during dialogue, as it comes across as abrasive and I'm sure you don't intend to be so. Also, if you could quote properly that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.


----------



## PsyOps

itsbob said:


> And again, your suggesting none of this existed before Moses lived to the age of what?  600 700 years??
> 
> Or before the 10 commandments...
> 
> You'd think that we would have never made it out of the Garden before Adam split Eve's skull open..



I never suggested any such thing.  I would subscribe to the belief that for as long as God has existed so have peace, love and free will.  I also don't subscribe to the literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story.


----------



## Radiant1

PsyOps said:


> Let me ask you this… If being born again doesn’t *assure *our salvation, what does?



Nothing.



PsyOps said:


> There are some primary passages in the bible that deal with our salvation:



There are a lot more than that. Would you like to go over them?



PsyOps said:


> I happen to think these passages are key in telling us how we are saved.



Those are a few, yes.



PsyOps said:


> You have to accept (believe in) Christ.  This belief is not just an acknowledgement.  The translated word “believe” from the Greek to English actually means to surrender to or completely submit to.



The passage says "For it is by grace you have been saved through faith". Yes, by grace. 



PsyOps said:


> Being born again comes with this accepting of Chirst.  But I think it's impossible for us to really understand this.  We are humans living in a physical world.  We are not equipped to understand this “spirit” thing.  We rely on things our physical senses tell us that something exists.  Over the millennia humans have lost the sense that allows us to feel this “spirit”.  I think that’s why Jesus said "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'”  He was trying to convey that he doesn’t really expect us to understand this “spirit” thing.  Just understand that we have to accept Christ and if we live according to His teachings the spirit will be there whether we can feel it or not.  I happen to think this is a long-growing process that doesn’t have this BIG eye-opening event; that you feel this big whooshing spirit sensation that a lot of people claim they have had when they became “born again”.  If that happens for some people that’s fine, it doesn’t happen that way for everyone and it didn’t for me.  To me this “born again” thing is a part that accompanies your acceptance of Christ.  It’s a part that God instills in us that affects each of us differently, but is not necessarily felt.



Agreed. I have no issue with being born again. What I have issue with is the notion that being born again grants us assurance of salvation.



PsyOps said:


> The last part to consider is that we can’t earn our way into heaven.  No matter how many great things we do in our lives, if we haven’t accept Christ we do not obtain salvation.  You are not born again unless you accept Christ.  There is no “spirit” in you unless you accept Christ.  Is all comes back to that simple passage in John 3:16.



I agree. One cannot earn their way to heaven on their own merit.

As for whether one must accept Christ to be saved, I think there are caveats that have been discussed previously (jungle boy conversations), so no need to reiterate them here. 

I agree that one is not born again unless they accept Christ.


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> As you wish my friend. Let me just say this to you. There is only one right way to interpret the Bible but there are many wrong ways.



Well, yours is obviously the right way and mine is obviously wrong. 



ItalianScallion said:


> Scripture explains itself by relating some verses to others (context).



Indeed it does. 



ItalianScallion said:


> PM me in a month  I'll talk to you on this, then.



From repetitive and fruitless debates, spare us oh Lord!


----------



## Radiant1

PsyOps said:


> I never suggested any such thing.  I would subscribe to the belief that for as long as God has existed so have peace, love and free will.  I also don't subscribe to the literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story.





Bob, haven't you been over this discussion with me before? I seem to recall a conversation regarding cave men (ugh ugh) and the concepts of goodness, truth, and beauty. 

Maybe it wasn't you but someone else (most likely my favorite Christ bashing atheist).


----------



## itsbob

Starman3000m said:


> *Without Bibles:** The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.* (Psalm 19:1)
> 
> The Pygmies: How do they live?
> The 'Pygmy' peoples are forest dwellers, and know the forest, its plants and its animals intimately. They live by hunting animals such as antelopes, pigs and monkeys, fishing, and gathering honey, wild yams, berries and other plants. *For them, the forest is a kindly personal god, who provides for their needs.* All Pygmy groups have close ties to neighbouring farming villagers, and work for them or exchange forest produce for crops and other goods. At its best this is a fair exchange, but it can involve exploitation of the Pygmies, especially where they have lost control of the forest and its resources.
> 
> African Tribes - Pygmies People
> 
> 
> Interesting that "without Bibles" ancient tribes had some sense of "spirituality" and that there must be a Great Creator that provides for their needs. Those in tune with the Spirit were in tune with the Creator.
> God has always had a way for revealing Himself to all people.



But it wasn't your God, it was their God.. and missionaries were sent around the Globe to cure them of this misconception, and with it the missionaries brought distrust, hate.. and war.

Just like the Native Americans believe in MANY Gods.. and the Christians took that as their being SAVAGES.. how WRONG you don't pray to MY God.. but that's OK, we'll put you on reservations, and bring in missionaries and priests to show you the error of your ways, and teach that OUR God is the right God.


----------



## Starman3000m

itsbob said:


> But it wasn't your God, it was their God.. and missionaries were sent around the Globe to cure them of this misconception, and with it the missionaries brought distrust, hate.. and war.
> 
> Just like the Native Americans believe in MANY Gods.. and the Christians took that as their being SAVAGES.. how WRONG you don't pray to MY God.. but that's OK, we'll put you on reservations, and bring in missionaries and priests to show you the error of your ways, and teach that OUR God is the right God.



I totally agree that such was done in the name of "Christianity" but it was for self-serving, territorial grabs and ethnic cleansing instigated not by true Christian leaders but by leaders who used the name of Christianity to further their agenda. The Inquisitions are a great example of a misled religious order using "Christianity" to advance its power-hungry agenda. Still goes on to this day, itsbob, but God knows who did what to whom and all shall give an account for the errors of their ways. Repentance and a change of heart are what God calls mankind into.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> Well, yours is obviously the right way and mine is obviously wrong.
> From repetitive and fruitless debates, spare us oh Lord!


Awww! Don't be like that...I'm really trying to show some love for you here and you're getting all sarcasmic over it. I'm such a failure...

 


Starman3000m said:


> The Inquisitions are a great example of a misled religious order using "Christianity" to advance its power-hungry agenda. Still goes on to this day, itsbob, but God knows who did what to whom and all shall give an account for the errors of their ways. Repentance and a change of heart are what God calls mankind into.


----------



## Highlander

ItalianScallion said:


> Awww! Don't be like that...I'm really trying to show some love for you here and you're getting all sarcasmic over it. I'm such a failure...



To Italian, Starboy and the other nut (Sorry I don't remember her name off hand).  Here's a link I though you'd enjoy.

the bible


----------



## Starman3000m

Highlander said:


> To Italian, Starboy and the other nut (Sorry I don't remember her name off hand).  Here's a link I though you'd enjoy.
> 
> the bible



And it's put together and sanctioned by none other than 
*vaticancatholic.com*

Nice try Highlander.


----------



## Highlander

Starman3000m said:


> And it's put together and sanctioned by none other than
> *vaticancatholic.com*
> 
> Nice try Highlander.



Oh, and your verison is sanctioned by

www.thecrazynutsshoutingatpeopletobesaved.com

www.ireadthebiblesoiknowitall.com

www.ibecamebornagaininjail.com


----------



## ItalianScallion

Highlander said:


> Oh, and your verison is sanctioned by
> 
> www.thecrazynutsshoutingatpeopletobesaved.com
> 
> www.ireadthebiblesoiknowitall.com
> 
> www.ibecamebornagaininjail.com



I still need to know your take on being born again. Is it right or wrong and how do you or the RCC explain it away?


----------



## Starman3000m

Highlander said:


> Oh, and your verison is sanctioned by
> 
> www.thecrazynutsshoutingatpeopletobesaved.com
> 
> www.ireadthebiblesoiknowitall.com
> 
> www.ibecamebornagaininjail.com



*Here Is A Bible Truth - No Supplemental Teachings Needed:*

*2 Timothy, Chapter 3:*

13: But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14: But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15: And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


----------



## Highlander

Starman3000m said:


> *Here Is A Bible Truth - No Supplemental Teachings Needed:*
> 
> *2 Timothy, Chapter 3:*
> 
> 13: But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
> 14: But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
> 15: And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
> 16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
> 17: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.



It worked.  I got both of you stirred up.  Thanks for the entertainment.  At what point did the two of you become born again?  Was there a stressful event in your life that turned you in this direction?  I mean, well, if this works for you and makes you feel good, fine!  I just can't stand the way the two of you try to discredit the Catholic church. In some way, I'd like to see both of you stand in front of the hundreds of Catholics at any given mass at any given church and watch as you have your azz handed to you.  Oops, that wasn't very Christian, was it?


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> And it's put together and sanctioned by none other than
> *vaticancatholic.com*
> 
> Nice try Highlander.



So you just dismiss it out of hand? What are you afraid of? You might just come to realize that there really is scriptural evidence for everything the Catholic Church teaches, but hey I understand you wouldn't want to remove yourself from your comfort zone in the name of ecumenism and understanding. Heck, at the very least it would give you more fodder for your seeming hatred. :shrug:


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> I still need to know your take on being born again. Is it right or wrong and how do you or the RCC explain it away?





The Catholic Church doesn't explain it away. At least not in its fundamental sense without all the added baggage that modern-day "born-agains" add to it. :shrug:


----------



## Starman3000m

Highlander said:


> ...In some way, I'd like to see both of you stand in front of the hundreds of Catholics at any given mass at any given church and watch as you have your azz handed to you.  Oops, that wasn't very Christian, was it?



You mean like when the Vatican-approved Inquisitions slaughtered Jews, Muslims, Protestants, and anyone else that did not accept Roman Catholicism as the "true Church" ????

I would have no fear standing in front of hundreds of Catholics and proclaiming my Born-Again experience and Salvation through my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The problem is, my 1989 Toyota wouldn't be allowed to drive into your church parking lot because it would be an "eyesore" and an embarrasment for you to see it parked near your church - as implied by your previous comments.

No, Highlander, I would not be afraid:

*And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.*
(Matthew 10:28)


----------



## baydoll

itsbob said:


> Yep, I just don't need a bible or Jesus, or the threat of eternity in hell to do it.
> 
> I do it because I'm generally a good person, without a reason,  and without the promise of a reward.  I won't perform for a doggy biscuit, I won't be good for the promise of heaven.  I'll be "good for goodness sake"
> 
> Being good only because you think there is reward at the end seems kind of insincere, and that you really are a bad person, putting on a facade so you can get what you think you deserve.
> 
> I'll be good because that's who I am, and who my parents raised me to be.



That's nice, Bob. In other words, you're your own god. And you've made 'god' into whom you like him to be. God according to itbob. Taylored specifically for him. 

Did you not read my post? I said Jesus saved me NOT because I was good but IN SPITE OF THAT. I am saved because I trust in Jesus's Goodness, not my own because no matter how good I am it is never enough to get me into Heaven. 

The way into Heaven is NOT by being good because none of us are. The way into Heaven is through Jesus, not by being 'good'.


----------



## baydoll

As for everybody else, I am having a lot of problems this morning with my computer so I am going to have to get back and answer your posts hopefully later today. 

Thanks for everybody's patience and have a great day!


----------



## baydoll

UGH!!  I am having the hardest time this morning on my computer....especially with Yahoo! I'm I the only one having these problems?

Radiant, I haven't forgotten you nor am I ignoring you, Hon. My computer is NOT being very cooperative today.


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> The Catholic Church doesn't explain it away. At least not in its fundamental sense without all the added baggage that modern-day "born-agains" add to it. :shrug:




Radiant, can you explain to us how one is Saved according to your Church? In your own words, please thanks.


----------



## Radiant1

baydoll said:


> Radiant, can you explain to us how one is Saved according to your Church? In your own words, please thanks.



The whole notion of once saved always saved is logically erroneous, which I have already demonstrated in this thread. Whether one has been born again has no immediate bearing on ones salvation.

I would kindly ask you to read Acts chapters 4&5 and tell me what you think of Annanias and his wife who were accepted by the Apostles as members of the community of believers, but yet were struck dead for their sin. I don't know about you, but when I read that it certainly doesn't appear that their salvation was a one-time guaranteed deal. :shrug:

Mind you, I rejected the notion of OSAS upon my own scriptural studies before ever being aware of what the Catholic Church teaches. You may not be aware, but I was not always a Catholic. I was baptized and raised Protestant.

In the Catholic view salvation is an ongoing process, not a one time deal. We are not *guaranteed *salvation but hope for it. We strive to participate with the grace that is given us. If/when we do, then we will do these things:

Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 16:31.

Endure to the end. Mt 10:22, Mt 24:13, Mk 13:13.

Accept the suffering of the Cross. Mt 10:38, Mt 16:24-25, Mk 8:34, Lk 9:23, Lk 14:27.

Be baptized with water. Mk 16:16, Titus 3:5, 1Peter 3:20-21.

Be a member of God's Church. Acts 2:47.

Confess sins. James 5:16, 1John 1:9.

Keep the commandments. Mt 5:19-20, Mt 7:21.

Partake in Body and Blood of Christ. Jn 6:51-58, 1Cor 10:16, 1Cor 11:23-29.


----------



## itsbob

baydoll said:


> That's nice, Bob. In other words, you're your own god. And you've made 'god' into whom you like him to be. God according to itbob. Taylored specifically for him.


Yep, just like EVERY religion on this planet.. I can TAILOR him any way I see fit.. and my followers will accept Him in his meatball manifestation because that's the way I intrepeted the Bible..

Welcome to the Bobvidians.. Skip the Middle man, just leave your wallets and purses with the ushers on the way in..


----------



## itsbob

Nucklesack said:


> Hey if i convert can i get a cut?



You can be  a plank owner, and be a primary bond holder in the company..

I'm thinking prayer cloths for $10 a piece, with a spaghetti sauce stain included  $25.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> The whole notion of once saved always saved is logically erroneous, which I have already demonstrated in this thread. Whether one has been born again has no immediate bearing on ones salvation.
> 
> I would kindly ask you to read Acts chapters 4&5 and tell me what you think of Annanias and his wife who were accepted by the Apostles as members of the community of believers, but yet were struck dead for their sin. I don't know about you, but when I read that it certainly doesn't appear that their salvation was a one-time guaranteed deal. :shrug:
> 
> Mind you, I rejected the notion of OSAS upon my own scriptural studies before ever being aware of what the Catholic Church teaches. You may not be aware, but I was not always a Catholic. I was baptized and raised Protestant.
> 
> In the Catholic view salvation is an ongoing process, not a one time deal. We are not *guaranteed *salvation but hope for it. We strive to participate with the grace that is given us. If/when we do, then we will do these things:
> 
> Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 16:31.
> 
> Endure to the end. Mt 10:22, Mt 24:13, Mk 13:13.
> 
> Accept the suffering of the Cross. Mt 10:38, Mt 16:24-25, Mk 8:34, Lk 9:23, Lk 14:27.
> 
> Be baptized with water. Mk 16:16, Titus 3:5, 1Peter 3:20-21.
> 
> Be a member of God's Church. Acts 2:47.
> 
> Confess sins. James 5:16, 1John 1:9.
> 
> Keep the commandments. Mt 5:19-20, Mt 7:21.
> 
> Partake in Body and Blood of Christ. Jn 6:51-58, 1Cor 10:16, 1Cor 11:23-29.



Actually you failed to comprehend that Ananias and his wife committed the One and Only unforgiveable sin through conspiring together to knowingly tell a lie to the Holy Spirit's inquiry of their transactions.

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the act of knowingly rejecting the Truth of God when presented through Divine Intervention or claiming that any miracle done by God's Holy Spirit is really of satan and not God.

*Here is the account:*

*Acts 5*

1But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, 

 2And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. 

 3But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 

 4Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. 

 5And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. 

 6And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> Actually you failed to comprehend that Ananias and his wife committed the One and Only unforgiveable sin through conspiring together to knowingly tell a lie to the Holy Spirit's inquiry of their transactions.



No, I didn't fail to comprehend. 

So, let me ask you...

Did they go directly to heaven? After all, they were accepted as "the community of believers", which according to OSAS would mean they were guaranteed salvation. :ahem: :coughcough:


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> No, I didn't fail to comprehend.
> 
> So, let me ask you...
> 
> Did they go directly to heaven? After all, they were accepted as "the community of believers", which according to OSAS would mean they were guaranteed salvation. :ahem: :coughcough:



Again, you failed to understand.

Yes, they were "accepted" as being part of the community of believers just as all people in your church and in other churches are "accepted".

The only thing is that not all who are in the group are truly sincere in their faith and thus not "True Believers" to begin with - only superficial in their profession of being a believer.

If Ananias and his wife had truly known the Living God and had a spiritual relationship as Born-Again believers in Christ, they would have known better than try to defraud God by lying. That proves they did not know God in the sense of being saved to begin with. There are many people who "claim to know God" but who do not know God nor believe God is all powerful and knowing of any deception that he/she has in their heart.


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> Again, you failed to understand.
> 
> Yes, they were "accepted" as being part of the community of believers just as all people in your church and in other churches are "accepted".
> 
> The only thing is that not all who are in the group are truly sincere in their faith and thus not "True Believers" to begin with - only superficial in their profession of being a believer.
> 
> If Ananias and his wife had truly known the Living God and had a spiritual relationship as Born-Again believers in Christ, they would have known better than try to defraud God by lying. That proves they did not know God in the sense of being saved to begin with. There are many people who "claim to know God" but who do not know God nor believe God is all powerful and knowing of any deception that he/she has in their heart.



Then how could the community of believers be of "one heart and mind" as scripture states?


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> Then how could the community of believers be of "one heart and mind" as scripture states?



Same as your church and any church congregants can be of "one heart and mind" but not of the same Spirit!

The Holy Bible states that one must be One in the Spirit with God - not just a superficial, half-hearted and lukewarm believer.

Jesus said "Ye Must Be Born Again (of The Spirit) in order to see the Kingdom of God.

There is a difference.

*For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.* (1 Corinthians 12:13)


----------



## Highlander

Starman3000m said:


> You mean like when the Vatican-approved Inquisitions slaughtered Jews, Muslims, Protestants, and anyone else that did not accept Roman Catholicism as the "true Church" ????
> 
> I would have no fear standing in front of hundreds of Catholics and proclaiming my Born-Again experience and Salvation through my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The problem is, my 1989 Toyota wouldn't be allowed to drive into your church parking lot because it would be an "eyesore" and an embarrasment for you to see it parked near your church - as implied by your previous comments.
> 
> No, Highlander, I would not be afraid:
> 
> *And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.*
> (Matthew 10:28)



You could always park behind the row of full sized vans carrying all those large families to church.   Or, try parking that junker behind the large Mother Mary statue.  The bushes should hide that thing. Or, even better, park it out by the dumpster in back.  It will make the dumpster look nicer than it is.


----------



## Starman3000m

Highlander said:


> You could always park behind the row of full sized vans carrying all those large families to church.   Or, try parking that junker behind the large Mother Mary statue.  The bushes should hide that thing. Or, even better, park it out by the dumpster in back.  It will make the dumpster look nicer than it is.



LOL
Thank you for exemplifying your church hospitality.


----------



## Highlander

Starman3000m said:


> LOL
> Thank you for exemplifying your church hospitality.



Would you be interested in some pamphlets to give you some information as to how to become a parishioner?  I'm just trying to help you and make sure you are saved!


----------



## Starman3000m

Highlander said:


> Would you be interested in some pamphlets to give you some information as to how to become a parishioner?  I'm just trying to help you and make sure you are saved!



No thanks. My Holy Bible is all that's needed for me to stand on God's Promises of Salvation through Christ alone. 
As a Born-Again Child of God I trust Jesus as my High Priest and Mediator to God; no other mediator(s) needed.


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> Same as your church and any church congregants can be of "one heart and mind" but not of the same Spirit!
> 
> The Holy Bible states that one must be One in the Spirit with God - not just a superficial, half-hearted and lukewarm believer.
> 
> Jesus said "Ye Must Be Born Again (of The Spirit) in order to see the Kingdom of God.
> 
> There is a difference.
> 
> *For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.* (1 Corinthians 12:13)



Scripture states that the community of believers were filled with the Holy Spirit. That would include Ananias and Sapphira before they made their fatal mistake.

Starman, I highly suggest you give this a lot of prayerful thought before responding any further, for you are treading very dangerous ground.


----------



## libby

Radiant1 said:


> Scripture states that the community of believers were filled with the Holy Spirit. That would include Ananias and Sapphira before they made their fatal mistake.
> 
> Starman, I highly suggest you give this a lot of prayerful thought before responding any further, for you are treading very dangerous ground.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> Scripture states that the community of believers were filled with the Holy Spirit. That would include Ananias and Sapphira before they made their fatal mistake.
> 
> Starman, I highly suggest you give this a lot of prayerful thought before responding any further, for you are treading very dangerous ground.



Actually, Radiant1, perhaps this is what you really need to give prayerful thought to:

*Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. *Matthew 7:22-24

Just because people "say" they are "Christian" does not make them so. That is a false-security that many "religious" folks have when they follow church rituals, traditions and doctrines of man rather than being sincere in their faith with God. 

I am secure in my faith and Salvation through Jesus Christ based on the indwellling Holy Spirit as a Born Again Child of God. Why would I or any other Born Again believer ever want to turn back to the world and reject our Salvation by the Grace of God when He has revealed the Truth to us.

The Holy Bible states that those born of The Spirit are sealed unto the day of Redemption. That's God's Promise and I'd rather believe God than a man wearing the cloth of any religious clergy.

Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. 
And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. (Ephesians 4:29-30)

You will need to explain to God one day why you placed your faith in other "mediators" and placed trust in the Marian doctrine and direction of the papacy that claims all humans must be subject to the papal office.

That's where your faith is misguided my friend.


----------



## thatguy

Starman3000m said:


> Actually, Radiant1, perhaps this is what you really need to give prayerful thought to:
> 
> *Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. *Matthew 7:22-24
> 
> Just because people "say" they are "Christian" does not make them so. That is a false-security that many "religious" folks have when they follow church rituals, traditions and doctrines of man rather than being sincere in their faith with God.
> 
> I am secure in my faith and Salvation through Jesus Christ based on the indwellling Holy Spirit as a Born Again Child of God. Why would I or any other Born Again believer ever want to turn back to the world and reject our Salvation by the Grace of God when He has revealed the Truth to us.
> 
> The Holy Bible states that those born of The Spirit are sealed unto the day of Redemption. That's God's Promise and I'd rather believe God than a man wearing the cloth of any religious clergy.
> 
> Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
> And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. (Ephesians 4:29-30)
> 
> You will need to explain to God one day why you placed your faith in other "mediators" and placed trust in the Marian doctrine and direction of the papacy that claims all humans must be subject to the papal office.
> 
> That's where your faith is misguided my friend.




nope, that is where all of your faiths are misguided.

all of these opinions are based on rituals and stories that were started or written by men. NONE OF THEM ARE ANYMORE RIGHT THAN ANY OTHERS.

ITS ALL FICTION.


----------



## This_person

thatguy said:


> nope, that is where all of your faiths are misguided.
> 
> all of these opinions are based on rituals and stories that were started or written by me. NONE OF THEM ARE ANYMORE RIGHT THAN ANY OTHERS.
> 
> ITS ALL FICTION.


And, of course, you can prove that.


----------



## thatguy

This_person said:


> And, of course, you can prove that.



i can prove it was all written or the traditions were started by men, yes.


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


>



The lack of real response to your scriptural dilemma says much.


----------



## This_person

thatguy said:


> i can prove it was all written or the traditions were started by men, yes.


But, certainly not that they're all fiction.

You can guess that.  I can't prove any of them true.  Believing they must be false because you can't prove them true is the misguided concept.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Highlander said:


> It worked.  I got both of you stirred up.  Thanks for the entertainment.  At what point did the two of you become born again?  Was there a stressful event in your life that turned you in this direction?  I mean, well, if this works for you and makes you feel good, fine!  I just can't stand the way the two of you try to discredit the Catholic church. In some way, I'd like to see both of you stand in front of the hundreds of Catholics at any given mass at any given church and watch as you have your azz handed to you.  Oops, that wasn't very Christian, was it?


Born October 14, 1954; Born again July 1989. No, it wasn't stressful, it was refreshing and releasing. I was searching for something  but I didn't know what. I had everything I needed in life (money, a house, motorcycle, friends, a girlfriend, great health and happiness) but there was something that I couldn't find. Well, it (He) found me. No tears, no kicking my heels together, just a peaceful realization that I was now walking in God's will. 
And, I have stood before Catholic groups in the past (not at a mass) and watched as God picked their doctrines apart through me. Within 30 minutes, they were spouting off expletives at me. How "saved" of them right? This led me to say that when the insults start, the opposition is out of ammunition. The only person who could "hand my cute a$$ to me" is one who knows the Bible better than I do. 


Radiant1 said:


> The Catholic Church doesn't explain it away. At least not in its fundamental sense without all the added baggage that modern-day "born-agains" add to it. :shrug:


But they don't say it's necessary either. Jesus did! (John 3v3) Who ya gonna believe now? The RCC can't override Jesus right? Right?


Nucklesack said:


> Which church did Hitler enter into an agreement with, had the aid of, and gained financial wealth from (to the point they recently had to return the loot they were given)?
> Pretty sure it wasnt the Born Againers.


Gotta agree with you on this one! Hitler was a professed Catholic. Oh Oh??? What will they say now? 
"Hitler regarded himself as a Catholic until he died. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941.
There was really no reason for Hitler to doubt his good standing as a Catholic. The Catholic press in Germany was eager to curry his favor, and the princes of the Catholic Church never asked for his excommunication. Religions encourage their followers to hold authority in unquestioning respect; this is what makes devout religionists such wonderful dupes for dictators.
Later the Pope was to publicly describe Hitler's opposition to Russia as a "highminded gallantry in defense of the foundations of Christian culture." Several German bishops openly supported Hitler's invasion of Russia, calling it a "European crusade." One bishop exhorted all Catholics to fight for "a victory that will allow Europe to breathe freely again and will promise all nations a new future." 


Highlander said:


> Would you be interested in some pamphlets to give you some information as to how to become a parishioner?  I'm just trying to help you and make sure you are saved!


Gee thanks! Before you show me how to get saved, tell me when and how YOU got saved....


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> Scripture states that the community of believers were filled with the Holy Spirit. That would include Ananias and Sapphira before they made their fatal mistake.


I'm not sure whether Ananias & Sapphira were believers or not. Peter said that "Satan has so filled your hearts that you have lied to the Holy Spirit"? 
I don't know, maybe they were, BUT the Bible does say that believers and non-believers lives can be ended by God at any time if He so chooses, so it really doesn't matter if they were or not does it? Here's just a few passages about this:
1 Samuel 2 v 31  
Ecclesiastes 8 v 13
1 Corinthians 11 v 30
1 John 5 v 16
So whether they were believers or not is :shrug: but the fact that the Holy Spirit would not be mocked was evident by His actions.


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> But they don't say it's necessary either. Jesus did! (John 3v3) Who ya gonna believe now? The RCC can't override Jesus right? Right?



John 3:5 "water and Spirit" meaning baptism. Stop being foolish. 



ItalianScallion said:


> Gotta agree with you on this one! Hitler was a professed Catholic. Oh Oh??? What will they say now?



They'll say the Church is made of wheat and chaffe. It's been like that from the beginning (think Judas). :shrug: 

Hitler was supported at the beginning of his political career because he was fighting Godless communism (i.e. Russia). Once his intentions became clear (i.e. holocaust) he was opposed.

A quote from Albert Einstein, an agnostic German of Jewish heritage regarding the Church and Nazi Germany; Time Magazine December 23, 1940 pg 38:

_Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...

Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly._

The Church had to be careful about public condemnation of Hitler, as to do so would only bring on more persecution and death for those under his power. Never the less, the Church released an encyclical titled _Mit brennender Sorge_ *in 1937 *that condemned Nazi doctrine.

You give the Church even more credit than it is due to think that the Church had the political power to stop Hitler. If only it were that easy.

What would you have done? Make a public condemnation of Nazi Germany knowing that millions more people would die, or work quietly behind the scenes to put an end to Hitler's reign?


----------



## toppick08

Prayer meeting starts in 2 hours..........wear your Sunday pants.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> The lack of real response to your scriptural dilemma says much.



Sorry, Radiant1, but the lack of your comprehension in the Holy Bible and trust of God's Promises are becoming even more apparent. As I stated before, there are those who claim to be  "Christian Believers" but are not. That was my point about Ananias and Sapphira - that perhaps they had not had a sincere commitment to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, thus they chose to lie.

However, for the sake of your argument, let's say that they were both sincere believers and had received Salvation yet knowingly dealt treacherously with God. You ask if they still went to heaven. The answer is *YES* if they had truly been born again of the Holy Spirit. The fact is that the sin they committed was lying to the Holy Spirit - Not rejecting the Holy Spirit. Therefore, God would not retract His Promise of Salvation but would deal Judgment upon them as in the case when they fell dead for conspiring to lie to the Holy Spirit.

The following verse explains the situation of how God deals with those unrepentant Believers who continue in sinful ways.


1 Corinthians Chapter 5:
1: It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
2: And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
3: For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
4: In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5: *To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.*
6: Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?

*There is Only One Unforgiveable Sin:*

Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: *But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: *(Mark 3:28-29)

*And, by the way*, Satan filled Peter's heart on a few occasions and Peter was guilty of the following (denying Christ) Did he lose his salvation?

Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:
But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. (Luke 12:8-10)


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> I'm not sure whether Ananias & Sapphira were believers or not. Peter said that "Satan has so filled your hearts that you have lied to the Holy Spirit"?
> I don't know, maybe they were, BUT the Bible does say that believers and non-believers lives can be ended by God at any time if He so chooses, so it really doesn't matter if they were or not does it? Here's just a few passages about this:
> 1 Samuel 2 v 31
> Ecclesiastes 8 v 13
> 1 Corinthians 11 v 30
> 1 John 5 v 16
> So whether they were believers or not is :shrug: but the fact that the Holy Spirit would not be mocked was evident by His actions.



It matters if you believe in once saved always saved. Scripture says they were in the community of believers who were filled with the Holy Spirit. If they were filled by the Holy Spirit then according to OSAS they were saved. But yet, a saved person does not lie to God, correct? 

You can't have it both ways merely because it's convenient for you.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> It matters if you believe in once saved always saved. Scripture says they were in the community of believers who were filled with the Holy Spirit. If they were filled by the Holy Spirit then according to OSAS they were saved. But yet, a saved person does not lie to God, correct?
> 
> You can't have it both ways merely because it's convenient for you.



Peter lied. Was he still saved?


----------



## toppick08

Oh boy.


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> Sorry, Radiant1, but the lack of your comprehension in the Holy Bible and trust of God's Promises are becoming even more apparent. As I stated before, there are those who claim to be  "Christian Believers" but are not. That was my point about Ananias and Sapphira - that perhaps they had not had a sincere commitment to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, thus they chose to lie.



Where they filled with the Holy Spirit or not? Either they were once saved always saved, or there is no guarantee of salvation. I'll tell you like I told IS, you can't have it both ways. 



Starman3000m said:


> However, for the sake of your argument, let's say that they were both sincere believers and had received Salvation yet knowingly dealt treacherously with God. You ask if they still went to heaven. The answer is *YES* if they had truly been born again of the Holy Spirit. The fact is that the sin they committed was lying to the Holy Spirit - Not rejecting the Holy Spirit. Therefore, God would not retract His Promise of Salvation but would deal Judgment upon them as in the case when they fell dead for conspiring to lie to the Holy Spirit.



What would be the point of striking them dead if they're going to be in heaven anyway?? I'm sorry, but that is ludicrous and God is not ludicrous. 



Starman3000m said:


> The following verse explains the situation of how God deals with those unrepentant Believers who continue in sinful ways.
> 
> 1 Corinthians Chapter 5:
> 1: It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
> 2: And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
> 3: For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
> 4: In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
> 5: *To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.*
> 6: Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?



MAY BE saved. Not IS saved! 



Starman3000m said:


> *There is Only One Unforgiveable Sin:*
> 
> Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: *But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: *(Mark 3:28-29)



Yes.



Starman3000m said:


> *And, by the way*, Satan filled Peter's heart on a few occasions and Peter was guilty of the following (denying Christ) Did he lose his salvation?



Peter was working out his salvation with fear and trembling. A good thing for all of us that he repented, eh? Even Peter's salvation was not assured during his lifetime. 



Starman3000m said:


> Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:
> But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. (Luke 12:8-10)



Unless you're saved. Oh no wait, if you do that, then you really weren't saved afterall (psych)! 

P-lease people. Are you not tired of trying to defend your position to the point of silliness? I'm finding your grasp at straws amusing.


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> Peter lied. Was he still saved?



See my response above, and try to address the issue at hand. You and IS have quite the dilemma on your hands.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> See my response above, and try to address the issue at hand. You and IS have quite the dilemma on your hands.



The dilemma is yours, because you still do not comprehend what truly being Born-Again is all about. It is Salvation in Christ sealed by the Holy Ghost unto the day of Redemption:

*And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.* (John 10:28)

A person can still quench and/or grieve the Holy Spirit but they are still sealed unto the day of Redemption:

And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.(Ephesians 4:30)

Col:1:14: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

*1 Thessalonians, Chapter 5:*
18: In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.
19: Quench not the Spirit.
20: Despise not prophesyings.
21: Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
22: Abstain from all appearance of evil.
23: And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
24: Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.


*The Dilemma Is yours Radiant1:*

You will need to explain to God one day why you placed your faith in other "mediators" and placed trust in the Marian doctrine and direction of the papacy that claims all humans must be subject to the papal office.

As stated before, that's where your faith is misguided my friend.


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> The dilemma is yours, because you still do not comprehend what truly being Born-Again is all about. It is Salvation in Christ sealed by the Holy Ghost unto the day of Redemption:
> 
> *And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.* (John 10:28)
> 
> A person can still quench and/or grieve the Holy Spirit but they are still sealed unto the day of Redemption:
> 
> And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.(Ephesians 4:30)
> 
> Col:1:14: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
> 
> *1 Thessalonians, Chapter 5:*
> 18: In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.
> 19: Quench not the Spirit.
> 20: Despise not prophesyings.
> 21: Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
> 22: Abstain from all appearance of evil.
> 23: And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
> 24: Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.
> 
> 
> *The Dilemma Is yours Radiant1:*
> 
> You will need to explain to God one day why you placed your faith in other "mediators" and placed trust in the Marian doctrine and direction of the papacy that claims all humans must be subject to the papal office.
> 
> As stated before, that's where your faith is misguided my friend.



Redemption is not the same as salvation. Being sealed with the Holy Spirit does not mean one is saved. Even the scripture passage you cite does not state what you are suggesting.  

If you refuse to take a hard look at OSAS doctrine, then that's your choice. Your journey is your own, as is mine.

I have no problem telling God On High, "I am a member of the Church that You established."  I fear He will be more concerned with the fact that I am finding amusement at your expense rather than the fact I'm Catholic.

Now, I'm off to break bread with my family. Have a wonderful and thought-filled evening!


----------



## toppick08

Radiant1 said:


> Redemption is not the same as salvation. Being sealed with the Holy Spirit does not mean one is saved. Even the scripture passage you cite does not state what you are suggesting.
> 
> If you refuse to take a hard look at OSAS doctrine, then that's your choice. Your journey is your own, as is mine.
> 
> I have no problem telling God On High, "I am a member of the Church that You established."  I fear He will be more concerned with the fact that I am finding amusement at your expense rather than the fact I'm Catholic.
> 
> *Now, I'm off to break bread with my family. Have a wonderful and thought-filled evening!*



May I take some too...you can at my Church........

have a good evening.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> Redemption is not the same as salvation. Being sealed with the Holy Spirit does not mean one is saved. Even the scripture passage you cite does not state what you are suggesting.
> 
> If you refuse to take a hard look at OSAS doctrine, then that's your choice. Your journey is your own, as is mine.
> 
> I have no problem telling God On High, "I am a member of the Church that You established."  I fear He will be more concerned with the fact that I am finding amusement at your expense rather than the fact I'm Catholic.
> 
> Now, I'm off to break bread with my family. Have a wonderful and thought-filled evening!



You will still need to explain to God one day why you placed your faith in other "mediators" and placed trust in the Marian doctrine and direction of the papacy that claims all humans must be subject to the papal office.

P.S. In case you aren't aware of your church history, Constantine, not Peter, founded the Roman Catholic Church. Later, the Vatican-led Inquisitions slaughtered Jews, Muslims, Protestants and anyone else who did not capitulate to forced conversions into the RCC and who would not regard the papacy as "God's" seat upon this earth. 

I'm telling you this day, Radiant1, that the Vatican and the entire RCC has much hidden darkness within its walls and your eyes are blinded by that darkness and by the religious bondage that controls you with the false security that you are a member of the only "true church" on earth.

*For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;* (1 Timothy 2:5)

*Whom do you really worship?*

- If the pope were to come into your home, would you bow to him and kiss his hand?

- Do you ever address the pope as "Holy Father" ?

- Do you pay reverence to the statues of the "Saints" ?

- Do you have a "patron saint" ?

- Do you regard Jesus' mother, Mary, a perpetual virgin?

- Do you direct prayers to Mary?

Are these not all "mediators" apart from the True Mediator, Jesus Christ?

So whom do you really worship?


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> John 3:5 "water and Spirit" meaning baptism. Stop being foolish.


Oh, you're getting physical now??? 
"Water", here, symbolizes human birth. "Spirit" symbolizes spiritual birth. 
There is no mention of water baptism in John 3:5 no matter how you slice it. 
FYI, there are 2 types of baptism spoken of in the Bible: 
Baptism simply means "immersion", nothing more. If you are immersed into the life of another, it is said that you are baptized into them (NO WATER). An example is (1 Corinthians 10 v 2). Paul said to the Corinthians that their forefathers were "baptized into Moses...". (Again , no water). 
In the NT, if you have accepted Jesus, you are "immersed" into His life first, then you are baptized in water as a public profession of your salvation. 


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> What would you have done? Make a public condemnation of Nazi Germany knowing that millions more people would die, or work quietly behind the scenes to put an end to Hitler's reign?


What they did was worse. They, is essence, denied God. They should have opposed Hitler and let the chips fall where they may. The wrath of God is much worse than the wrath of Hitler.


Radiant1 said:


> It matters if you believe in once saved always saved. Scripture says they were in the community of believers who were filled with the Holy Spirit. If they were filled by the Holy Spirit then according to OSAS they were saved. But yet, a saved person does not lie to God, correct? You can't have it both ways merely because it's convenient for you.


Ok, they could very well have been saved. I'm not saying they weren't. 
Saved people can lie to God; They're not sinless. Starman said it well in post #555. 


Radiant1 said:


> You and IS have quite the dilemma on your hands.


Our dilema is trying to get you to see what Scripture really says.  


Radiant1 said:


> Redemption is not the same as salvation. Being sealed with the Holy Spirit does not mean one is saved.


Ruh Roh! So what does "being sealed with the Holy Spirit" mean oh Radiant 1?
Redemption is a "cashing in" on what we have waited for. Salvation is being sure that we will be "cashed in". 
Remember those "Top Value Stamps" of the '60's? (You're probably 2 young). The stamps are our salvation and taking the book to the store for our prize is redemption.


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> :ignorance:



Again, you dodge the issue at hand. What are you afraid of?



ItalianScallion said:


> Oh, you're getting physical now???



You know you love it. 



ItalianScallion said:


> "Water", here, symbolizes human birth. "Spirit" symbolizes spiritual birth.
> There is no mention of water baptism in John 3:5 no matter how you slice it.
> FYI, there are 2 types of baptism spoken of in the Bible:
> Baptism simply means "immersion", nothing more. If you are immersed into the life of another, it is said that you are baptized into them (NO WATER). An example is (1 Corinthians 10 v 2). Paul said to the Corinthians that their forefathers were "baptized into Moses...". (Again , no water).
> In the NT, if you have accepted Jesus, you are "immersed" into His life first, then you are baptized in water as a public profession of your salvation.



No mention of water? It specifically says *WATER*. Read verses 3-5 again. Nicodemus misunderstands "How can a person once grown old be born *again*?" Jesus then corrects his misunderstanding by telling him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of *water and Spirit*." When Jesus Himself was baptized (water) by John in the river Jordan, what happened? The Spirit came down upon Him.

1Cor 10:1-2: I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all of them were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure the sea is a whole bunch of water.

Congratulations, I'm now even more leary of your interpretation of scripture than I was before because you're flat out blind if you don't see water baptism in those passages.



ItalianScallion said:


> "What they did was worse. They, is essence, denied God. They should have opposed Hitler and let the chips fall where they may. The wrath of God is much worse than the wrath of Hitler.



They "in essence" denied God? They should have "let the chips fall where they may"? 

Let it be known here and now that IS would have acted to have MILLIONS MORE PEOPLE KILLED.

Wow. Just wow.



ItalianScallion said:


> "Ok, they could very well have been saved. I'm not saying they weren't.
> Saved people can lie to God; They're not sinless. Starman said it well in post #555.



Ok, so committing the unforgivable sin is ok if one is "saved", which means it's really not the unforgivable sin after all and scripture lied according to you and Starman. 



ItalianScallion said:


> Our dilema is trying to get you to see what Scripture really says.



Scripture according to IS, whose only authority is his claim to be saved. Oh, but wait! He may not really be saved afterall and could be lying to himself much like my friend who thought she was saved too. 

After reading your statements above, there's no way I'd accept your interpretation of scripture, so yes, this is very much yet another dilemma for you. 



ItalianScallion said:


> Ruh Roh! So what does "being sealed with the Holy Spirit" mean oh Radiant 1?
> Redemption is a "cashing in" on what we have waited for. Salvation is being sure that we will be "cashed in".
> Remember those "Top Value Stamps" of the '60's? (You're probably 2 young). The stamps are our salvation and taking the book to the store for our prize is redemption.



It means simply that, being sealed with the Holy Spirit. It means grace is given to us. Again, we must participate with that grace. Again, I will tell you that you do not know that your stamps will be "cashed in".

1 Cor 9:27 No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, *I myself should be disqualified*.

From the mouth of St. Paul to your ears.


----------



## baydoll

Originally Posted by baydoll  who is in DARK RED today...
Again, your friend is a tare, Radiant. Of course she's going to lie to you...she isn't Saved. She is deceiving you. 



> That could be true, and it could be true regarding you as well.



*What could be true of me, Radiant? Your friend obviously used you. Her 'fruits' were lying to you so she could steal from you. Fruits: lying and stealing. What am I lying to you about? And for what purpose*?


Quote:
Originally Posted by baydoll  
Quote:
Originally Posted by baydoll 
Do you know what the Fruit of the Spirit are, Radiant? 

And what are they? Yes I do. Do you? 



> You may not be aware of my background and that's okay, but do not patronize me. If I say I know them, I know them.
> 
> I'd like to think I exhibit the fruits of the spirit; however, I am far from perfect, so will leave it up to God to judge whether I truly do or not.



*Radiant, for all I know, what you think are the Fruit of the Spirit is totally different from what I think. This is the reason WHY I asked you to list them for me. Also God TOLD us to judge fruits. How else would we know whom is truly from God or not? How else would we protect ourselves FROM Tares? 

 It's called discernment.* 


Quote:
Originally Posted by baydoll  
Quote:
Originally Posted by baydoll 
Precisely. If you doubt your salvation you really don't have a clue. 

So in other words, you're not trusting in Jesus at all..you're trusting in YOU. 



> I trust that the grace is given to me, I do not trust that I will always participate with It.



*And what is this 'grace'? And how, exactly, do you 'participate' in it*? 


Quote:
Originally Posted by baydoll  
Pssst....guess what....I never said I did. 



> Great, then you agree with me that you have no assurance of salvation.



*Go back and read my post, Radiant. I said I have no clue if you are going to Heaven or not. I am not God, Dear*. 


Quote:
Originally Posted by baydoll  
Quote:
Originally Posted by baydoll 
Did you repent of your sins at the time of your baptism? Believe in Christ with all your heart? Trust in what He did on the Cross to save you? 

That's not what I asked you. At the time of your baptism, is this what you did? 



> At my baptism, it was done on my behalf. At my confirmation, I did so of my own accord and with great pleasure and continue to do so.



*So you didn't repent nor believed in God at the time of your baptism*.   


Quote:
Originally Posted by baydoll  
Quote:
Originally Posted by baydoll 
Are you working FOR your salvation or working it OUT, Radiant? 

So how does one work OUT something they don't have, Radiant? 



> In the hopes that one will have it. I suggest you do the same as St. Paul exhorts you to do.



*If that was the case then Paul would have said work FOR your Salvation, Radiant. You don't work OUT something you don't have yet or hope to have one day.  *. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by baydoll  
And Catholics don't lie?



> And of course you don't ever lie either, right?



What would I be lying about, Radiant? 



> About your own salvation, and the mechanism for being saved. If my friend was mistaken and was a tare without knowing it, then perhaps you are too.



*Obviously your friend was not following Christ. She said she was but her fruits gave her away. How do I know I am saved? Because I am trusting in CHRIST, dear, not myself. My life (especially my heart) has changed dramatically since I have been saved. AND I believe what God says that those who believes in him may HAVE eternal life. 

Do YOU believe that verse or not, Radiant? Was God lying to us when He spoke those words through the Apostle John? *?


Quote:
Originally Posted by baydoll  
Did you not read my previous posts to you? The difference between you and me is that I BELIEVE in God. I BELIEVE in what God said. I TRUST in HIM that He saved me. I do not trust in myself because I cannot save myself. I trust and believe in HIM when He said: 



> You are heavily implying that I do not believe in God and that I do not trust in Him. Those are extremely bold words. I highly suggest you pray over that.



*Oh believe me I have, Dear. You are just one of many Catholics I have been is discussions with over the years. I pray over you all. 

So who (and what) are you trusting in to get you into Heaven?* 


Quote:
Originally Posted by baydoll  
Again, do you know what the fruit of the Spirit are, Radiant? And how do YOU judge that YOU actually exhibit such fruit? 



> Answer my question please. As for my answer, see above.



*I'm still waiting for you to list them*....


Quote:
Originally Posted by baydoll  
Do you see me being a people pleaser on here, Radiant? Actually I am putting myself on line even being on here because the majority of the people on Southern Maryland Online hate my guts. 



> Heh, you don't say.



*Which is precisely my point. * 

Quote:
Originally Posted by baydoll  
So yeah there's a lot of people patting me on my back here. As for patting myself on the back? For what? Having people hate me and call me names? Say false things about me or what I said? Yeah I pat myself on the back for that each and every day.  




> Um hmm.



*So thanks for further proving my point. * 



Quote:
Originally Posted by baydoll  
God already HAS told me, Radiant.  



> So you say.



*No.... GOD says, Dear.*  

For the future, I would kindly ask you not to use my name quite so much during dialogue, as it comes across as abrasive and I'm sure you don't intend to be so. Also, if you could quote properly that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. 

*Um hmm.* 

*Welcome*.


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> I would kindly ask you to read Acts chapters 4&5 and tell me what you think of Annanias and his wife who were accepted by the Apostles as members of the community of believers, but yet were struck dead for their sin. I don't know about you, but when I read that it certainly doesn't appear that their salvation was a one-time guaranteed deal. :shrug:



How do you know Annanias and his wife are in Hell, Radiant?


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> The whole notion of once saved always saved is logically erroneous, which I have already demonstrated in this thread. Whether one has been born again has no immediate bearing on ones salvation.



So what did Jesus mean when He told Nicodemus that he needed to be Born Again in order to get into His Kingdom, Radiant? Isn't that salvation?


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> Mind you, I rejected the notion of OSAS upon my own scriptural studies before ever being aware of what the Catholic Church teaches. You may not be aware, but I was not always a Catholic. I was baptized and raised Protestant.



So we have something in common after all! I was baptized and raised a Protestant too. I too left the Protestant church. Now I'm a Christian!


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> In the Catholic view salvation is an ongoing process, not a one time deal. We are not *guaranteed *salvation but hope for it. We strive to participate with the grace that is given us. If/when we do, then we will do these things:
> 
> Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 16:31.
> 
> Endure to the end. Mt 10:22, Mt 24:13, Mk 13:13.
> 
> Accept the suffering of the Cross. Mt 10:38, Mt 16:24-25, Mk 8:34, Lk 9:23, Lk 14:27.
> 
> Be baptized with water. Mk 16:16, Titus 3:5, 1Peter 3:20-21.
> 
> Be a member of God's Church. Acts 2:47.
> 
> Confess sins. James 5:16, 1John 1:9.
> 
> Keep the commandments. Mt 5:19-20, Mt 7:21.
> 
> Partake in Body and Blood of Christ. Jn 6:51-58, 1Cor 10:16, 1Cor 11:23-29.




Oh so I guess Paul and Silas didn't get your Church's Memo on How To Get Saved....

And according to the Catholic Church even if you believe in God's Son that still is not a *guarantee* of eternal life...

I guess God didn't get that memo either.....


----------



## baydoll

itsbob said:


> Yep, just like EVERY religion on this planet.. I can TAILOR him any way I see fit.. and my followers will accept Him in his meatball manifestation because that's the way I intrepeted the Bible..
> 
> Welcome to the Bobvidians.. Skip the Middle man, just leave your wallets and purses with the ushers on the way in..



So everyone should believe as you do? Your way is the right way?


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


>



Libby, perhaps you can help Radiant out, Dear...where in that passage does it say those two lost their salvation?


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> Again, you dodge the issue at hand. What are you afraid of?



Uhmm... I think it is you, Radiant1, who is really dodging the issue at hand. 

Jesus said that a person *must be "Born Again" *before he/she can enter the Kingdom of God. I asked you to define what "Born Again" means to you.

I am not afraid of your misguided theological implications. They are hollow and have no truthful substance.

*What I wonder is: *what are you afraid of in taking a deep introspect into the church theology that you are defending? Instead of praising and proclaiming your faith and deliverance through Jesus Christ, you , like the other RCC posters, are praising Mary and defending the Vatican's leadership under all of the popes. You praise man more than the Creator.

I will ask again:

You will still need to explain to God one day why you placed your faith in other "mediators" and placed trust in the Marian doctrine and direction of the papacy that claims all humans must be subject to the papal office.

P.S. In case you aren't aware of your church history, Constantine, not Peter, founded the Roman Catholic Church. Later, the Vatican-led Inquisitions slaughtered Jews, Muslims, Protestants and anyone else who did not capitulate to forced conversions into the RCC and who would not regard the papacy as "God's" seat upon this earth. 

I'm telling you this day, Radiant1, that the Vatican and the entire RCC has much hidden darkness within its walls and your eyes are blinded by that darkness and by the religious bondage that controls you with the false security that you are a member of the only "true church" on earth.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1 Timothy 2:5)

*Whom do you really worship?*

- If the pope were to come into your home, would you bow to him and kiss his hand?

- Do you ever address the pope as "Holy Father" ?

- Do you pay reverence to the statues of the "Saints" ?

- Do you have a "patron saint" ?

- Do you regard Jesus' mother, Mary, a perpetual virgin?

- Do you direct prayers to Mary?

Are these not all "mediators" apart from the True Mediator, Jesus Christ?

*So whom do you really worship?*


----------



## baydoll

> 1Cor 10:1-2: I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all of them were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
> 
> I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure the sea is a whole bunch of water.




And the cloud part is what, exactly?


----------



## baydoll

> No mention of water? It specifically says WATER. Read verses 3-5 again. Nicodemus misunderstands "How can a person once grown old be born again?" Jesus then corrects his misunderstanding by telling him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit." When Jesus Himself was baptized (water) by John in the river Jordan, what happened? The Spirit came down upon Him.



So how do you know it SPECIFIALLY means BAPTISM in that passage with Nicodemus?

AND if it is baptism, how do you know that it is the cause, rather than the sign, of regeneration?

In Scripture, water is also often referred to as a spiritual cleansing by the Word and the Spirit. 

So that being the case, then why couldn't Jesus be referring to the inward work of the Holy Spirit by His Word, cleansing of a soul, rather than baptism?


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> It means simply that, being sealed with the Holy Spirit. It means grace is given to us. Again, we must participate with that grace. Again, I will tell you that you do not know that your stamps will be "cashed in".
> 
> 1 Cor 9:27 No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, *I myself should be disqualified*.
> 
> From the mouth of St. Paul to your ears.



How do you know Paul meant he would lose his salvation in that passage?

And again, what is this 'grace' you keep talking about and how does one 'participate' with it?


----------



## libby

I've spent this past week reading my Bible instead of posting on these forums, although I have followed the thread.  As I read this post this morning I was reminded of a parable (not a Bible parable, as you will see).  I cannot remember the details, but it goes something like this.
There were once two priests who had made vows to never marry, and to never even touch a woman.
They came to a river, and there was a woman trying to cross.  One of the priests offered to help.  He picked her up, carried her across and then the priests went on their way.  The second priest was so upset and concerned that the first priest had touched this woman!  Finally he said, "How could you have carried a woman across the river?"  The first replied, "My brother, I set her down on the other side, you have been carrying her ever since."

Now, if we could please excuse my poor delivery and get straight to the point of the parable.



Starman, IS and Baydoll are the ones preoccupied with the Catholic Church and Mary.  Neither R1 nor I have used anything but the Bible to explain and defend our faith, yet you continually bring it up.  Put the church down and concentrate on your supposed service of Jesus Christ.

Go back to the Bible.  If all answers are within its pages then explain to R1 Ananias and Sapphira.  I went and read it myself and you have not addressed the theological problem here.
The Apostles (according to you) had unique authority to open and/or close Heaven; it is clear these two were welcomed as saved, indeed the apostles themselves counted them among the community.
Now as Baydoll pointed out so well, we do not know that these two did not go directly to Heaven, however it is _abundantly clear _that they were _punished_ for their sin.  Sssooooooooo now you have the problem of explaining the temporal punishment even if they did not suffer eternal punishment.
This is the Biblical teaching of the Catholic Church, that while we are spared eternal punishment, there is still temporal punishment.
Let's look at Acts 8 and Simon the magician.  We are told that Simon "believed and, after being baptized, became devoted..."  However, then we see that Simon wanted the power the Apostles had and offered them money to give it to him. "May your money perish with you", Peter says, "you have not share or lot in this matter, for your heart is not upright before God"..."repent, that,_ if possible_, your intention _may _be forgiven"
How could Simon's heart not be upright if it was cleansed in the Blood of Christ?  Isn't that all God the Father sees in a believer once the person has accepted Jesus?  What had Simon to repent of, and why did he need to fear if he was once and for all justified and saved?
Gosh, the Bible is AWESOME!!


----------



## thatguy

This_person said:


> But, certainly not that they're all fiction.
> 
> You can guess that.  I can't prove any of them true.  Believing they must be false because you can't prove them true is the misguided concept.



as we have all agreed that no man can KNOW on god's level, then logic demands that these stories could only be fiction.
and i didn't say false, i said fiction, there is a difference.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> I've spent this past week reading my Bible instead of posting on these forums, although I have followed the thread.  As I read this post this morning I was reminded of a parable (not a Bible parable, as you will see).  I cannot remember the details, but it goes something like this.
> There were once two priests who had made vows to never marry, and to never even touch a woman.
> They came to a river, and there was a woman trying to cross.  One of the priests offered to help.  He picked her up, carried her across and then the priests went on their way.  The second priest was so upset and concerned that the first priest had touched this woman!  Finally he said, "How could you have carried a woman across the river?"  The first replied, "My brother, I set her down on the other side, you have been carrying her ever since."
> 
> Now, if we could please excuse my poor delivery and get straight to the point of the parable.
> 
> 
> 
> Starman, IS and Baydoll are the ones preoccupied with the Catholic Church and Mary.  Neither R1 nor I have used anything but the Bible to explain and defend our faith, yet you continually bring it up.  Put the church down and concentrate on your supposed service of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Go back to the Bible.  If all answers are within its pages then explain to R1 Ananias and Sapphira.  I went and read it myself and you have not addressed the theological problem here.
> The Apostles (according to you) had unique authority to open and/or close Heaven; it is clear these two were welcomed as saved, indeed the apostles themselves counted them among the community.
> Now as Baydoll pointed out so well, we do not know that these two did not go directly to Heaven, however it is _abundantly clear _that they were _punished_ for their sin.  Sssooooooooo now you have the problem of explaining the temporal punishment even if they did not suffer eternal punishment.
> This is the Biblical teaching of the Catholic Church, that while we are spared eternal punishment, there is still temporal punishment.
> Let's look at Acts 8 and Simon the magician.  We are told that Simon "believed and, after being baptized, became devoted..."  However, then we see that Simon wanted the power the Apostles had and offered them money to give it to him. "May your money perish with you", Peter says, "you have not share or lot in this matter, for your heart is not upright before God"..."repent, that,_ if possible_, your intention _may _be forgiven"
> How could Simon's heart not be upright if it was cleansed in the Blood of Christ?  Isn't that all God the Father sees in a believer once the person has accepted Jesus?  What had Simon to repent of, and why did he need to fear if he was once and for all justified and saved?
> Gosh, the Bible is AWESOME!!




Actually I am preoccupied with God's Truth, libby, which your Church happens to butcher beyond recognition.

And as for Ananias and his wife, nowhere in that passage does it even remotely suggest they lost their salvation it only says they died so the problem is yours, Hon.  You are trying to force something into Scripture that doesn't belong there. 

And as for Simon, that was precisely what Peter was trying to get Simon to see...that his heart was not right with God. What is so wrong about that? So what did Peter do? He pointed that out to him. and then he tells Simon to do what? REPENT of his sins...and please notice what Peter DIDN'T tell Simon to do which was confess his sins to HIM but to GOD. 

Something strange considering Peter was suppose to be the first pope and all.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Now as Baydoll pointed out so well, we do not know that these two did not go directly to Heaven, however it is _abundantly clear _that they were _punished_ for their sin.  Sssooooooooo now you have the problem of explaining the temporal punishment even if they did not suffer eternal punishment.



The "temporal punishment" is that God tooK them home. Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead physically in their mortal bodies so that their bodies were destroyed but not their souls. Temporal means "here and now:.



> This is the Biblical teaching of the Catholic Church, that while we are spared eternal punishment, there is still temporal punishment.



Not quite true libby! The RCC teaches that upon one's death, you will go to a spiritual half-way house called "purgatory" to continue some cleansing process by spiritual punishments. And, when God gets through with giving you the amount of punishment necessary then you get to get into heaven.

That is heretical teaching.

Nowehere does the Bible state that when a believer dies they are sent to purgatory. You either die in a state of being saved or you die in a state of not being saved through rejecting the offer of Salvation by the Grace of God and through the Atoning Blood of Christ.

The RCC doctrine of "purgatory" is a trap by making people believe that the Atoning Blood of Christ cannot be complete in the here and now but that one must complete their salvation points after getting punished in the spiritual after-life.

I have heard that the Vatican/RCC has made lots of money over the centuries by selling off "indulgences" and giving parishioners a "pass" by paying in advance to get some of the expected punishments in purgatory waived. *Is that true???*


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> Actually I am preoccupied with God's Truth, libby, which your Church happens to butcher beyond recognition.
> 
> And as for Ananias and his wife, nowhere in that passage does it even remotely suggest they lost their salvation it only says they died so the problem is yours, Hon.  You are trying to force something into Scripture that doesn't belong there.
> 
> And as for Simon, that was precisely what Peter was trying to get Simon to see...that his heart was not right with God. What is so wrong about that? So what did Peter do? He pointed that out to him. and then he tells Simon to do what? REPENT of his sins...and please notice what Peter DIDN'T tell Simon to do which was confess his sins to HIM but to GOD.
> 
> Something strange considering Peter was suppose to be the first pope and all.



Dodged again.  If the Blood of Christ has cleansed the believer, how can the Bible say that the believer was not upright (translate to purified, sanctified or whatever) before God. _ If I am not understanding your theology correctly, please correct the theology_.  Are we covered, or cleansed, by the Blood of Christ? _ Is His Blood sufficient to cover our sins in front of God or not?_


----------



## camily

Starman3000m said:


> The "temporal punishment" is that God tooK them home. Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead physically in their mortal bodies so that their bodies were destroyed but not their souls. Temporal means "here and now:.
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite true libby! The RCC teaches that upon one's death, you will go to a spiritual half-way house called "purgatory" to continue some cleansing process by spiritual punishments. And, when God gets through with giving you the amount of punishment necessary then you get to get into heaven.
> 
> That is heretical teaching.
> 
> Nowehere does the Bible state that when a believer dies they are sent to purgatory. You either die in a state of being saved or you die in a state of not being saved through rejecting the offer of Salvation by the Grace of God and through the Atoning Blood of Christ.
> 
> The RCC doctrine of "purgatory" is a trap by making people believe that the Atoning Blood of Christ cannot be complete in the here and now but that one must complete their salvation points after getting punished in the spiritual after-life.
> 
> I have heard that the Vatican/RCC has made lots of money over the centuries by selling off "indulgences" and giving parishioners a "pass" by paying in advance to get some of the expected punishments in purgatory waived. *Is that true???*



What about the belief that someone that was really good can get you in by letting you have some of their "credit" if you weren't good enough? Or that you can be prayed in by others?


----------



## libby

> Nowehere does the Bible state that when a believer dies they are sent to purgatory.



Nowhere in the Bible does it state that _every _believer is sent_ directly _to Heaven, either.


----------



## libby

I have heard that the Vatican/RCC has made lots of money over the centuries by selling off "indulgences" and giving parishioners a "pass" by paying in advance to get some of the expected punishments in purgatory waived. *Is that true???*[/QUOTE]

Trying to change the subject, I see.  You, dear Starman, are obsessed with the Catholic Church.  You spend an inordinate amount of time trying to get people to look at the Church, which necessarily takes their eyes of off Christ.  
Now back to the Holy Bible, which we agree is inerrant.  Ananias, Sapphira and Simon, all counted believers and receiving the Holy Spirit, yet lying to the HS and cast away, respectively.  OSAS?  Never saved, but fooled the Apostles who had a unique commissioning and authority??
Golly day!  
The Holy Bible states (you can look this up, too) that Simon (after believing and being baptized) "was "filled with bitter gall and are in the bonds of iniquity", 
So Simon says, "Pray for me... that nothing of what you have said may come ipon me". 
Not the language of one who is assured salvation, is it?


----------



## This_person

Nucklesack said:


> Yeah, just to warn you, thats not going to go over very well.  You can expect revisionists to come on and point to the fact Pope Pius XII came out against Nazi Germany, AFTER THE LIBERATION OF EUROPE, as proof the Catholic Church wasnt in collusion with Nazi Germany, and ignored the Holocaust.


Actually, you've been shown repeatedly that it was before and during the war that he was against what was going on.

YOu just choose not to accept that.


----------



## Radiant1

baydoll said:


> Originally Posted by baydoll  who is in DARK RED today...
> 
> *What could be true of me, Radiant? Your friend obviously used you. Her 'fruits' were lying to you so she could steal from you. Fruits: lying and stealing. What am I lying to you about? And for what purpose*?





Maybe if you read this slowly you might comprehend. 

If she was mistaken, then you may be also. Are you without sin? I think not. Where does that leave you? And where does that leave me as to who to believe? 



baydoll said:


> *Radiant, for all I know, what you think are the Fruit of the Spirit is totally different from what I think. This is the reason WHY I asked you to list them for me. Also God TOLD us to judge fruits. How else would we know whom is truly from God or not? How else would we protect ourselves FROM Tares?
> 
> It's called discernment.*



Agreed, and I discern that you really don't know what you are talking about.



baydoll said:


> *And what is this 'grace'? And how, exactly, do you 'participate' in it*?





Sanctifying grace. You participate in it by doing the things I already listed.



baydoll said:


> [*Go back and read my post, Radiant. I said I have no clue if you are going to Heaven or not. I am not God, Dear*.



I thought you knew by discerning the fruits of the Spirit. You're right, you don't have a clue. I'm fine with that.



baydoll said:


> *So you didn't repent nor believed in God at the time of your baptism*.



It was done on my behalf until I could do so myself. What is your point? That I was not saved at my baptism? I would agree. 



baydoll said:


> *If that was the case then Paul would have said work FOR your Salvation, Radiant. You don't work OUT something you don't have yet or hope to have one day.  *



If you already have it, then what is the point in working it out? You can't work on something that is already complete (i.e. salvation). I wonder what St. Paul would think of your attempt at silly semantics. 



baydoll said:


> *Obviously your friend was not following Christ. She said she was but her fruits gave her away. How do I know I am saved? Because I am trusting in CHRIST, dear, not myself. My life (especially my heart) has changed dramatically since I have been saved. AND I believe what God says that those who believes in him may HAVE eternal life.*





Once again, please read this slowly for your comprehension.

I don't know that you are lying anymore than I knew she was lying. You claim she was lying to herself, but yet you may be also.

I don't know you outside of this thread, so I have no way of determining your fruits. You are asking me to take your word for it. So did she. 



baydoll said:


> Do YOU believe that verse or not, Radiant? Was God lying to us when He spoke those words through the Apostle John? [/B]?



Absolutely I believe it, and of course God would not lie. *MAY *have eternal life. The word "may" implies something that *has not yet *occurred. 

Please read that again slowly for your comprehension.



baydoll said:


> *Oh believe me I have, Dear. You are just one of many Catholics I have been is discussions with over the years. I pray over you all. *



Thanks, I think.



baydoll said:


> *So who (and what) are you trusting in to get you into Heaven?*





For the umpteenth time... I trust in God's grace that I must participate with. I realize you are used to the either/or type of thinking, but try to broaden your horizons and think of it in terms of both/and. *Both *God's grace *and *my participation with it.



baydoll said:


> *I'm still waiting for you to list them*....



I find this exercise ridiculous, but if you insist.

Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.



baydoll said:


> *Which is precisely my point. *



Oooo k.



baydoll said:


> *So thanks for further proving my point. *



Oooo k. Give yourself a big pat on the back. 



baydoll said:


> *No.... GOD says, Dear.*



You place yourself most high. When it comes to whether you are saved or not you could be lying, just as you claim my friend was (see above). Really, it's so YOU say.



baydoll said:


> For the future, I would kindly ask you not to use my name quite so much during dialogue, as it comes across as abrasive and I'm sure you don't intend to be so. Also, if you could quote properly that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
> 
> *Um hmm.*
> 
> *Welcome*.



You should not accept thanks for something you have yet to do. 

You seem proud of yourself, what fruit of the Spirit does that fall under?


----------



## Radiant1

baydoll said:


> How do you know Annanias and his wife are in Hell, Radiant?



I don't. I don't know that they are in Heaven either. That's the point. 



baydoll said:


> So what did Jesus mean when He told Nicodemus that he needed to be Born Again in order to get into His Kingdom, Radiant? Isn't that salvation?



It means baptism. You know, where one receives the sanctifying grace that one needs to partipate with in order to obtain salvation.



baydoll said:


> So we have something in common after all! I was baptized and raised a Protestant too. I too left the Protestant church. Now I'm a Christian!



Oh, I'm thrilled. I'm sure the billions of Catholics and Protestants worldwide are dismayed to know that they are not Christian according to you. 

By the way, if you're not Catholic or Orthodox, you're still a Protestant even you if you don't claim a denomination.



baydoll said:


> Oh so I guess Paul and Silas didn't get your Church's Memo on How To Get Saved....
> 
> And according to the Catholic Church even if you believe in God's Son that still is not a *guarantee* of eternal life...
> 
> I guess God didn't get that memo either.....



God doesn't need a memo for His own will. I pray He tapes His memo on your forehead for your edification.



baydoll said:


> Libby, perhaps you can help Radiant out, Dear...where in that passage does it say those two lost their salvation?



They never had it to begin with. That's the point. 



baydoll said:


> And the cloud part is what, exactly?



Spirit. You know, what comes to a person when they are baptized with water. 



baydoll said:


> So how do you know it SPECIFIALLY means BAPTISM in that passage with Nicodemus?



Because it says "water". 



baydoll said:


> AND if it is baptism, how do you know that it is the cause, rather than the sign, of regeneration?
> 
> In Scripture, water is also often referred to as a spiritual cleansing by the Word and the Spirit.
> 
> So that being the case, then why couldn't Jesus be referring to the inward work of the Holy Spirit by His Word, cleansing of a soul, rather than baptism?



That's what baptism is baydoll. 



baydoll said:


> How do you know Paul meant he would lose his salvation in that passage?



Because I read it in its context (ch. 9&10). 



baydoll said:


> And again, what is this 'grace' you keep talking about and how does one 'participate' with it?



I wouldn't think I should have to spell it out for you, but apparently I do. 

Christianity 101:
Sanctifying grace, also known as justifying grace, is that which is given to us when infused with the Holy Spirit at baptism without which we could not participate in the divine life. One participates with it, by doing those things that I and others (PsyOPs for example) have outlined earlier in this thread.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:
			
		

> Trying to change the subject, I see.  You, dear Starman, are obsessed with the Catholic Church.  You spend an inordinate amount of time trying to get people to look at the Church, which necessarily takes their eyes of off Christ.



Sorry, my dear libby, however just so that you are aware:

*The RCC preaches a different "Jesus"  than the Jesus of the Holy Bible.*

The RCC Jesus is OK with Catholics praying to his mother, and any other "saint" of their choosing.

The RCC Jesus is OK with a mortal man being able to forgive sins in place of Jesus - the One who died to be the only one who can forgive sins.

The RCC Jesus is ready to save people who believe in Him in the "here and now" but must yet PUNISH them in a spiritual half-way house known as purgatory.

The RCC Jesus' forgiveness was only partial and cannot be completed until the RCC believer passes their punishment phase in the spiritual half-way house called purgatory.

The RCC Jesus redistributes his literal flesh and blood in the Eucharist.

*Sorry*, *you have your eyes on the Jesus of the RCC and NOT on the True Jesus of the Holy Bible.*



> Now back to the Holy Bible, which we agree is inerrant.  Ananias, Sapphira and Simon, all counted believers and receiving the Holy Spirit, yet lying to the HS and cast away, respectively.  OSAS?  Never saved, but fooled the Apostles who had a unique commissioning and authority??
> Golly day!
> The Holy Bible states (you can look this up, too) that Simon (after believing and being baptized) "was "filled with bitter gall and are in the bonds of iniquity",
> So Simon says, "Pray for me... that nothing of what you have said may come ipon me".
> Not the language of one who is assured salvation, is it?



Funny you should bring this up without having a real understanding of the situation, libby. This is exactly what the RCC does when it requires "indulgences" in order to try to buy something (forgiveness) that only God can give.

*Let's look at the circumstances here:*

First of all - the Holy Bible states that whomsoever God loves, He chastens - meaning in the here and now during this lifetime for specific disobediences. When a parent corrects a child (chastens) the child still belongs to that parent.

*The scene:* The Holy Bible states that Simon, in his ignorance, believed that he could buy the ability to perform miracles in the Holy Ghost. Simon was therefore rebuked for thinking that money can buy favor with God. Here is the account:

*Acts 8:19-25*

19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. 

20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. 

21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. 

22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. 

23 For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. 

24 Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the LORD for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me. 

25 And they, when they had testified and preached the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans.


Peter then tells Simon to repent of that type of thinking, which Simon then fears the chastening of what may occur - like having his money perish.

*Hebrews 12:6*
For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

*Hebrews 12:7*
If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?


----------



## Bavarian

Starman3000m said:


> Sorry, my dear libby, however just so that you are aware:
> 
> *The RCC preaches a different "Jesus"  than the Jesus of the Holy Bible.*
> 
> The RCC Jesus is OK with Catholics praying to his mother, and any other "saint" of their choosing.
> 
> What Son would deny His mother anything?  Jesus entered this World the first time via Mary and will come again thru Mary
> 
> The RCC Jesus is OK with a mortal man being able to forgive sins in place of Jesus - the One who died to be the only one who can forgive sins.
> "Who sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, who's sins ye shall retain they are retained"  The Prieset is an AlteChristus!
> The RCC Jesus is ready to save people who believe in Him in the "here and now" but must yet PUNISH them in a spiritual half-way house known as purgatory.
> 
> Then why did He say that some sins could not be forgiven in this World or the next?  Must mean some can be forgiven in the next World.


You can not have meaningful discussions with people like you who have an abridged bible, Throw out passages you don't like and don't know the Gospels.
This thread is proof that you are lost and I suggest you sign up for RCIA lessons at once.


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> Sorry, my dear libby, however just so that you are aware:
> 
> *The RCC preaches a different "Jesus"  than the Jesus of the Holy Bible.*
> 
> The RCC Jesus is OK with Catholics praying to his mother, and any other "saint" of their choosing.
> 
> The RCC Jesus is OK with a mortal man being able to forgive sins in place of Jesus - the One who died to be the only one who can forgive sins.
> 
> The RCC Jesus is ready to save people who believe in Him in the "here and now" but must yet PUNISH them in a spiritual half-way house known as purgatory.
> 
> The RCC Jesus' forgiveness was only partial and cannot be completed until the RCC believer passes their punishment phase in the spiritual half-way house called purgatory.
> 
> The RCC Jesus redistributes his literal flesh and blood in the Eucharist.
> 
> *Sorry*, *you have your eyes on the Jesus of the RCC and NOT on the True Jesus of the Holy Bible.*
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you should bring this up without having a real understanding of the situation, libby. This is exactly what the RCC does when it requires "indulgences" in order to try to buy something (forgiveness) that only God can give.
> 
> *Let's look at the circumstances here:*
> 
> First of all - the Holy Bible states that whomsoever God loves, He chastens - meaning in the here and now during this lifetime for specific disobediences. When a parent corrects a child (chastens) the child still belongs to that parent.
> 
> *The scene:* The Holy Bible states that Simon, in his ignorance, believed that he could buy the ability to perform miracles in the Holy Ghost. Simon was therefore rebuked for thinking that money can buy favor with God. Here is the account:
> 
> *Acts 8:19-25*
> 
> 19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
> 
> 20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
> 
> 21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.
> 
> 22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
> 
> 23 For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.
> 
> 24 Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the LORD for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.
> 
> 25 And they, when they had testified and preached the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans.
> 
> 
> Peter then tells Simon to repent of that type of thinking, which Simon then fears the chastening of what may occur - like having his money perish.
> 
> *Hebrews 12:6*
> For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
> 
> *Hebrews 12:7*
> If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?



I know the passage Starman, I brought it to you, remember?  Now please answer the earlier questions, 
1) how could Simon's heart not be upright before the Lord if he is covered by the Blood of Christ?  Don't you believe Jesus stands before Simon?  Is Christ's Sacrifice not enough to redeem Simon of this sin?

2)after being told by Peter that he has no share in their lot, Simon asks for prayers that he is forgiven of his sin.  Again, if he is once saved always saved then the language makes no sense.  Do you ask God for forgiveness so that you _may _be saved?  

We'll have to get to chastisement later, it's off topic.


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> Uhmm... I think it is you, Radiant1, who is really dodging the issue at hand.



I do not wish to dodge anything; however, this thread is about being born again and the doctrine of once saved always saved, not Catholicism.

If you wish to take it up with me, then feel free to start a new thread, one for each point, and I will do my best within my timeframe to answer as much as I can.



Starman3000m said:


> Jesus said that a person *must be "Born Again" *before he/she can enter the Kingdom of God. I asked you to define what "Born Again" means to you.



Jesus said one must be born again of water and Spirit. That means baptism plain and simple. There is also the notion that you and I both ascribe to where one has received Christ into their hearts and experience a renewal of faith, a metanoia if you will. Now, as far as I am concerned, that can and should happen numerous times during ones lifetime. Even so, it does not guarantee salvation, nor does it make one person more faithful than another. It merely makes a person a better Christian then they previously were.



Starman3000m said:


> I am not afraid of your misguided theological implications. They are hollow and have no truthful substance.



They aren't misguided; however, if you find no truth in it, then so be it. Your journey is your own.



Starman3000m said:


> *What I wonder is: *what are you afraid of in taking a deep introspect into the church theology that you are defending?



See above.



Starman3000m said:


> Instead of praising and proclaiming your faith and deliverance through Jesus Christ, you , like the other RCC posters, are praising Mary and defending the Vatican's leadership under all of the popes. You praise man more than the Creator.



Really? My first post in this thread was in response to ItsBob and the notion of goodness. I subsequently asked a question regarding my friend and her salvation in light of once saved always saved. In fact, when questioned by others I started out with my own thoughts about salvation regardless of what the Catholic Church teaches. Catholicism was not brought up by me. 

I think Libby is correct when she says you are obsessed. Whatever possesses you to constantly attack your brethren in Christ is beyond me. If I were IS I'd say were driven by Satan, but I'm not IS.

Truly Starman, God would be better served if you were to direct your energies first to the Atheists, then to the Agnostics, then to the non-Christians. Once you take care them, then you can crusade against the Catholics. 



Starman3000m said:


> I will ask again:
> 
> You will still need to explain to God one day why you placed your faith in other "mediators" and placed trust in the Marian doctrine and direction of the papacy that claims all humans must be subject to the papal office.
> 
> P.S. In case you aren't aware of your church history, Constantine, not Peter, founded the Roman Catholic Church. Later, the Vatican-led Inquisitions slaughtered Jews, Muslims, Protestants and anyone else who did not capitulate to forced conversions into the RCC and who would not regard the papacy as "God's" seat upon this earth.
> 
> I'm telling you this day, Radiant1, that the Vatican and the entire RCC has much hidden darkness within its walls and your eyes are blinded by that darkness and by the religious bondage that controls you with the false security that you are a member of the only "true church" on earth.
> 
> For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1 Timothy 2:5)
> 
> *Whom do you really worship?*
> 
> - If the pope were to come into your home, would you bow to him and kiss his hand?
> 
> - Do you ever address the pope as "Holy Father" ?
> 
> - Do you pay reverence to the statues of the "Saints" ?
> 
> - Do you have a "patron saint" ?
> 
> - Do you regard Jesus' mother, Mary, a perpetual virgin?
> 
> - Do you direct prayers to Mary?
> 
> Are these not all "mediators" apart from the True Mediator, Jesus Christ?
> 
> *So whom do you really worship?*



I wouldn't even know where to begin to disavow you of your ignorance with what you've stated here. I'm sure it would be pointless because you've already proven your willfull ignorance and intellectual dishonesty; however, as I said above, start a new thread for each point individually, and I will do my best to answer. It's not like anything fruitful between you and I will come of it, but we can partake of the exercise anyway for the edification of others.


----------



## toppick08

We need a good ole' fashioned revival............

Up From The Grave He Arose...............


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> I know the passage Starman, I brought it to you, remember?  Now please answer the earlier questions,
> 1) how could Simon's heart not be upright before the Lord if he is covered by the Blood of Christ?  Don't you believe Jesus stands before Simon?  Is Christ's Sacrifice not enough to redeem Simon of this sin?



Simon did not commit the unpardonable sin libby! Out of Simon's ignorance, he believed he could buy God's favor and be able to pay money so that he could also perform the miracles he saw were being done. People weak in faith can do and say things out of ignorance without realizing what they have done is wrong. When Simon realized that you don't buy spiritual things with money it dawned on him that he was wrong and quickly sought to repent of his request believing he could purchase with money the ability to perform miracles. That is the context and error of his ways in that situation.



> 2)after being told by Peter that he has no share in their lot, Simon asks for prayers that he is forgiven of his sin.  Again, if he is once saved always saved then the language makes no sense.  Do you ask God for forgiveness so that you _may _be saved?



One asks forgiveness for sinful transgressions or actions that come through human frailty - we are still not perfect but we are forgiven. Paul admitted his weaknesses and exemplifies one person  asking forgiveness for taking wrong courses of action while still knowing that he is saved by the Blood of Christ.

*1 John Chapter 2:*

1: My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
3: And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4: He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5: But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6: He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.



> We'll have to get to chastisement later, it's off topic.



OK


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> I think Libby is correct when she says you are obsessed. Whatever possesses you to constantly attack your brethren in Christ is beyond me. If I were IS I'd say were driven by Satan, but I'm not IS.
> 
> Truly Starman, God would be better served if you were to direct your energies first to the Atheists, then to the Agnostics, then to the non-Christians. Once you take care them, then you can crusade against the Catholics.



Hmmm... I believe there have been a few Atheists and Agnostics in this forum that I have contended with and as for non-Christians, please see 
Research

My obsession is to expose theological doctrines that preach a different Jesus than the Jesus of the Holy Bible. That is what Christ has called me to do and please do not try to play the "victim" card here because the same info from the Holy Bible is compared to others who are caught up in false and misguided teachings such as the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesseses, and other pseduo-Christian cults.

I would be remiss for not pointing out that such theologies are not scriptural as they have been built around Biblical verses taken out of context and not around the Truth of Jesus Christ.

As for your comment regarding being driven by Satan, I think you had better think twice for what you have said. For if what I preach here is truly of God then you have God to answer to and you are bordering on the One and Only unforgiveable sin. That is something you should really seriously consider before making such a comment.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> No mention of water? It specifically says *WATER*. Read verses 3-5 again. Nicodemus misunderstands "How can a person once grown old be born *again*?" Jesus then corrects his misunderstanding by telling him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of *water and Spirit*." When Jesus Himself was baptized (water) by John in the river Jordan, what happened? The Spirit came down upon Him.
> 1Cor 10:1-2: I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all of them were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
> I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure the sea is a whole bunch of water.


 I said "not a water baptism". Water yes, but it refers to human birth here. Slooowwww down little energizer bunny. 
"Water & Spirit" means birth & rebirth.
Baptized into Moses means they put their full faith in him. There was NO water baptism in the OT, remember? 
I think I might stop replying to this thread because we're not making headway. You can keep hitting me though. I love the attention... 


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> Congratulations, I'm now even more leary of your interpretation of scripture than I was before because you're flat out blind if you don't see water baptism in those passages.


In context, there is no water baptism. 


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> Let it be known here and now that IS would have acted to have MILLIONS MORE PEOPLE KILLED.


God wants obedience....


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> Wow. Just wow.


Stop looking in the mirror when we're talking here!! 


libby said:


> Neither R1 nor I have used anything but the Bible to explain and defend our faith, yet you continually bring it up.


Different Bible + similar words = a different meaning. 


			
				Libby said:
			
		

> Let's look at Acts 8 and Simon the magician.  We are told that Simon "believed and, after being baptized, became devoted..."  However, then we see that Simon wanted the power the Apostles had and offered them money to give it to him. "May your money perish with you", Peter says, "you have not share or lot in this matter, for your heart is not upright before God"..."repent, that,_ if possible_, your intention _may _be forgiven"
> How could Simon's heart not be upright if it was cleansed in the Blood of Christ?  Isn't that all God the Father sees in a believer once the person has accepted Jesus?  What had Simon to repent of, and why did he need to fear if he was once and for all justified and saved?


It's really difficult to know if Simon REALLY was saved Libby. Luke says he was and Peter say he wasn't. When contradictory statements like those appear in the Bible, we have to try to discern them according to their context. 
Maybe he was saved but his newness to Christianity and lack of the Holy Spirit caused him to mis-speak. Remember, Simon had not yet received the HS (v 16). 
Maybe, to Luke, he seemed to be saved until his action dictated otherwise. 
Even Peter was called Satan by Jesus and denied Him 3 times but was still saved.


----------



## PsyOps

The word "water" in terms of being born and born again is widely misunderstood.  The word water is used to describe the spirit.  For instance:



> Jesus answered her, If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.  Sir, the woman said, you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water?  Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?  Jesus answered, Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life. (John 4:10-14)





> With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation. (Isaiah 12:3)



If you read John 3:5: “Jesus answered, I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.” Note the wording is “born of water and the spirit”, not “born of water and of the spirit”.  Water and spirit are conjunctive.  If you note later in the passage of John 3:6 Jesus states that “flesh gives birth to flesh”.  No mention of water.  Leaving water out of this indicates that it is not meant as our natural (or flesh) birth either.  So water does not represent our first birth in the flesh.

If you read Mark 16:16



> “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”



In other words, if you are saved, the result of that salvation you are compelled to be baptized, you will obtain salvation.  Then he states that if you do not believe (no mention of baptism) you will be condemned.  So baptism comes after being saved (or born again).  It is an act that someone who is saved is compelled to do as a sign of obedience to God.  

So the first birth cannot be baptism.  And the first birth is not our flesh.  Being born of water and spirit are one in the same.  

And on the subject of baptism being required for salvation, if baptism were required then why didn’t Jesus do it?:



> The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. (John 4:1-2)



And this…



> What I mean is this: One of you says, I follow Paul; another, I follow Apollos; another, I follow Cephas; still another, I follow Christ.  Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?  I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no-one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.)  For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel— not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. (1 Corinthians 1:12-17)



When Jesus came proclaiming the Good News or our salvation there was no mention of baptism.  The act of baptism is an expression of your faith.  The water is the symbol that represents the spirit that saves you.  The water does not save you.  The act of baptism does not save you; only the Holy Spirit can save you.


----------



## libby

In every instance of the Holy Spirit being given in the New Testament, water baptism is associated with it. In all but one case, the Holy Spirit was given after water baptism (cf. Acts 2:38, 8:9–17). When Paul questioned the Ephesian disciples about their relationship with the Holy Spirit, he asked, "Into what then were you baptized?" When they answered, "Into John’s baptism," Paul knew they had not received Christian baptism. So he preached the gospel first and then baptized them with Christian baptism (in the name of Christ), laid his hands upon them, and they immediately received the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:1–6). He could not come until they had been baptized "into Christ."

The only time the Holy Spirit was given before baptism is recorded in Acts 10:44–48, where the Gentiles were added to the Christian Church. In chapter eleven we soon discover why: Had not the Holy Spirit fallen upon the Gentiles, the Jews would have never allowed them entrance into the Church (11:1–3, 15–18).

Of Water and the Spirit (This Rock: December 2000)


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> In every instance of the Holy Spirit being given in the New Testament, water baptism is associated with it. In all but one case, the Holy Spirit was given after water baptism (cf. Acts 2:38, 8:9–17). When Paul questioned the Ephesian disciples about their relationship with the Holy Spirit, he asked, "Into what then were you baptized?" When they answered, "Into John’s baptism," Paul knew they had not received Christian baptism. So he preached the gospel first and then baptized them with Christian baptism (in the name of Christ), laid his hands upon them, and they immediately received the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:1–6). He could not come until they had been baptized "into Christ."



Are you kidding?

That's because John's water baptism was one of "repentance" and Paul's "baptism" was not of water but of the baptism of the Holy Spirit which was transferred by  the Laying upon of hands" not being immersed in water.



> The only time the Holy Spirit was given before baptism is recorded in Acts 10:44–48, where the Gentiles were added to the Christian Church. In chapter eleven we soon discover why: Had not the Holy Spirit fallen upon the Gentiles, the Jews would have never allowed them entrance into the Church (11:1–3, 15–18).
> 
> Of Water and the Spirit (This Rock: December 2000)



In all but one case???
Hmmm...are you sure about your claim libby?

My Bible states that there were other instances where people received the Holy Ghost but does not say anything about water baptism being associated with the following:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 1:18)

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
For with God nothing shall be impossible. (Luke 1:35-37)

And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 
(Luke 1:41)

And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; (Luke 1:67-69)

Question: Where is water baptism associated with any of the above?


----------



## PsyOps

libby said:


> In every instance of the Holy Spirit being given in the New Testament, water baptism is associated with it. In all but one case, the Holy Spirit was given after water baptism (cf. Acts 2:38, 8:9–17). When Paul questioned the Ephesian disciples about their relationship with the Holy Spirit, he asked, "Into what then were you baptized?" When they answered, "Into John’s baptism," Paul knew they had not received Christian baptism. So he preached the gospel first and then baptized them with Christian baptism (in the name of Christ), laid his hands upon them, and they immediately received the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:1–6). He could not come until they had been baptized "into Christ."
> 
> The only time the Holy Spirit was given before baptism is recorded in Acts 10:44–48, where the Gentiles were added to the Christian Church. In chapter eleven we soon discover why: Had not the Holy Spirit fallen upon the Gentiles, the Jews would have never allowed them entrance into the Church (11:1–3, 15–18).
> 
> Of Water and the Spirit (This Rock: December 2000)



In every instance of the Holy Spirit being given in the New Testament, water baptism is associated with it. In all but one case, the Holy Spirit was given after water baptism (cf. Acts 2:38, 8:9–17). When Paul questioned the Ephesian disciples about their relationship with the Holy Spirit, he asked, "Into what then were you baptized?" When they answered, "Into John’s baptism," Paul knew they had not received Christian baptism. So he preached the gospel first and then baptized them with Christian baptism (in the name of Christ), laid his hands upon them, and they immediately received the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:1–6). He could not come until they had been baptized "into Christ."

The only time the Holy Spirit was given before baptism is recorded in Acts 10:44–48, where the Gentiles were added to the Christian Church. In chapter eleven we soon discover why: Had not the Holy Spirit fallen upon the Gentiles, the Jews would have never allowed them entrance into the Church (11:1–3, 15–18).




> Acts 2:38
> 
> Peter replied, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.



As I mentioned in my post baptism follows repentance (or believing).  But Jesus never baptized.  Did Jesus require baptism?  No.  Yet he was baptized.  It is a symbol of your faith; the cleansing of your sins.



> Acts 8:15-17
> 
> When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.  Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.



They were already baptized when Peter and John placed their hands on them.  This verse does not indicate that the spirit came when baptized.  Nor does it state that Peter and John baptized them.



> Acts 19:3-6
> 
> So Paul asked, Then what baptism did you receive? John's baptism, they replied.  Paul said, John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.  On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.  When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.



First they were baptized in the name of a human (John); which would imply they asked for forgiveness in the name of John not Jesus.  Salvation is not obtained through John.  But they received the Holy Spirit when Paul placed his hands on them, not when they were baptized.

But I challenge you to find anywhere that Christ stated that you must be baptized in order to obtain salvation.  John 16:16 (as I referenced) eludes to this but if you read the passage carefully you will see in the second part of that verse that you are condemned if you do not believe.  He doesn’t say that “whoever does not believe and be baptized will be condemned”.

But I ask you this… If I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior today and am killed tomorrow before I had the chance to be baptized, am I saved?

If I get baptized but don’t accept Jesus as my Lord and savior am I saved?


----------



## libby

> But I ask you this… If I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior today and am killed tomorrow before I had the chance to be baptized, am I saved?



Are you asking for my opinion?  I think anyone, anywhere would say "Absolutely!"

When the Catholic Church says baptism is necessary, it means in an ordinary course of events.  Throughout the Catechism there is the differentiation between the ordinary and the extraordinary situations.


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> Are you kidding?
> 
> That's because John's water baptism was one of "repentance" and Paul's "baptism" was not of water but of the baptism of the Holy Spirit which was transferred by  the Laying upon of hands" not being immersed in water.
> 
> 
> 
> In all but one case???
> Hmmm...are you sure about your claim libby?
> 
> My Bible states that there were other instances where people received the Holy Ghost but does not say anything about water baptism being associated with the following:
> 
> Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 1:18)
> 
> And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
> And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
> For with God nothing shall be impossible. (Luke 1:35-37)
> 
> And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
> (Luke 1:41)
> 
> And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; (Luke 1:67-69)
> 
> Question: Where is water baptism associated with any of the above?



Okay Starman, I will stand corrected that not everywhere in the New Testament.  Revise my statement to everywhere in the New Covenant, and I will see if I can contact the publishers of the magazine from which I took the article.
Now I'll go back and see how much of a difference this makes.


----------



## libby

> The act of baptism does not save you; only the Holy Spirit can save you.


[/QUOTE]

1 Peter 3 tells us that "in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.  This prefigured baptism, which saves you now..."

God used water in the story of Noah to wash away the sin of the world.  Peter could not be any clearer about the necessity of baptism in this passage, IMO.
So the water of Genesis washed away sin, and simultaneously saved [Noah and his family].

God uses matter to accomplish His Will, not because He needs to, but He must see it as fitting for our own sanctification.  Jesus uses clay to heal the blind man when He could do it with just a thought or word.  It is my supposition that because we are creatures that respond to matter.  He made us and he knows that it is helpful to see, hear, touch and taste to believe in something.  That is JMHO.


----------



## camily

1 Peter 3 tells us that "in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.  This prefigured baptism, which saves you now..."

God used water in the story of Noah to wash away the sin of the world.  *Peter could not be any clearer about the necessity of baptism in this passage, IMO.*So the water of Genesis washed away sin, and simultaneously saved [Noah and his family].

God uses matter to accomplish His Will, not because He needs to, but He must see it as fitting for our own sanctification.  Jesus uses clay to heal the blind man when He could do it with just a thought or word.  It is my supposition that because we are creatures that respond to matter.  He made us and he knows that it is helpful to see, hear, touch and taste to believe in something.  That is JMHO.[/QUOTE]

But Catholics don't get baptized, only christened, so how does that fit into your beliefs?


----------



## libby

camily said:


> 1 Peter 3 tells us that "in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.  This prefigured baptism, which saves you now..."
> 
> God used water in the story of Noah to wash away the sin of the world.  *Peter could not be any clearer about the necessity of baptism in this passage, IMO.*So the water of Genesis washed away sin, and simultaneously saved [Noah and his family].
> 
> God uses matter to accomplish His Will, not because He needs to, but He must see it as fitting for our own sanctification.  Jesus uses clay to heal the blind man when He could do it with just a thought or word.  It is my supposition that because we are creatures that respond to matter.  He made us and he knows that it is helpful to see, hear, touch and taste to believe in something.  That is JMHO.



But Catholics don't get baptized, only christened, so how does that fit into your beliefs?[/QUOTE]

Uh...we don't?


----------



## PsyOps

libby said:


> Are you asking for my opinion?  I think anyone, anywhere would say "Absolutely!"
> 
> When the Catholic Church says baptism is necessary, it means in an ordinary course of events.  Throughout the Catechism there is the differentiation between the ordinary and the extraordinary situations.



You've just proven that baptism isn't necessary for salvation.  It is a symbol of one's faith and acceptance of Christ, just like communion.  Baptism follows repentance, not the other way around.  I'm certainly not suggesting believers shouldn't be baptized.  As a believer you should feel compelled to.  But I think too much emphasis is placed on baptism as a requirement for salvation, when it is clear it is not.

And I find it rather telling that you decided not to answer my second question.


----------



## PsyOps

camily said:


> 1 Peter 3 tells us that "in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.  This prefigured baptism, which saves you now..."
> 
> God used water in the story of Noah to wash away the sin of the world.  *Peter could not be any clearer about the necessity of baptism in this passage, IMO.*So the water of Genesis washed away sin, and simultaneously saved [Noah and his family].
> 
> God uses matter to accomplish His Will, not because He needs to, but He must see it as fitting for our own sanctification.  Jesus uses clay to heal the blind man when He could do it with just a thought or word.  It is my supposition that because we are creatures that respond to matter.  He made us and he knows that it is helpful to see, hear, touch and taste to believe in something.  That is JMHO.
> 
> But Catholics don't get baptized, only christened, so how does that fit into your beliefs?





> For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith— and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no-one can boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)



It's the grace of God and our faith we are saved.  Not things we do.  Baptism is a symbol of our faith.  It is not what saves us.  But if you read the verse in 1 Peter 3:22 in its full context you will see that baptism with water is 1) a symbol and 2) that it does not wash the dirt (or sins) from the body, but is a pledge to God.  The rest of the verse reads "It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ".  So it is not the baptism saves you, it is the resurrection of Christ and your faith in Him that compels you to be baptized as a symbol of your pledge to God.


----------



## libby

> And I find it rather telling that you decided not to answer my second question.


[/QUOTE]

Don't get too excited, I simply missed it.  

The answer would be 'No'.  The sacrament of baptism means nothing without Jesus Christ, and all things are through Him, with Him and in Him.  
For every Sacrament that Catholics receive, if the person is going through the motions without having that "personal relationship with Christ", they are getting nowhere fast.


----------



## libby

PsyOps said:


> But Catholics don't get baptized, only christened, so how does that fit into your beliefs?





It's the grace of God and our faith we are saved.  Not things we do.  Baptism is a symbol of our faith.  It is not what saves us.  But if you read the verse in 1 Peter 3:22 in its full context you will see that baptism with water is 1) a symbol and 2) that it does not wash the dirt (or sins) from the body, but is a pledge to God.  The rest of the verse reads "It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ".  So it is not the baptism saves you, it is the resurrection of Christ and your faith in Him that compels you to be baptized as a symbol of your pledge to God.[/QUOTE]

Peter tells us that the waters saved Noah and his family.  Now, we know that is only in a secondary sense, because in the strict sense it is God that saves.  No different for baptism, Jesus Christ is the Savior, baptism is just fulfilling one of the commands.


----------



## PsyOps

libby said:


> Peter tells us that the waters saved Noah and his family.  Now, we know that is only in a secondary sense, because in the strict sense it is God that saves.  No different for baptism, Jesus Christ is the Savior, baptism is just fulfilling one of the commands.



Maybe I've misunderstood you.  I was of the impression that you believed Baptism is what saves us.  I am also of the impression this is what Catholics believe; especially through infant/child baptism.


----------



## libby

PsyOps said:


> Maybe I've misunderstood you.  I was of the impression that you believed Baptism is what saves us.  I am also of the impression this is what Catholics believe; especially through infant/child baptism.



Really? You actually believed that we think baptism saves us, strictly speaking?  Well, that would be a "work", wouldn't it?  But no, baptism only saves insofar as it is fulfilling a command of Jesus Christ; however, a command we do not believe is optional.


----------



## PsyOps

libby said:


> Really? You actually believed that we think baptism saves us, strictly speaking?  Well, that would be a "work", wouldn't it?  But no, baptism only saves insofar as it is fulfilling a command of Jesus Christ; however, a command we do not believe is optional.



Can you explain why Catholics perform infant baptism?


----------



## libby

PsyOps said:


> Can you explain why Catholics perform infant baptism?



Because we believe in Original Sin, and nowhere are we told that children are to be excluded from this.  That the first Christians were adults, which therefore required conversions before baptism does not pose a problem, as we see that entire households were baptized.  I'll get the verses tomorrow if you want.
Catholics are brought into the family of God through baptism just as circumcision brought infants into the Old Covenant.  From childhood we teach our children to know, love and serve the Lord, and when they reach the age of accountability they are Confirmed. _ It is a sad truth that many people go through these sacraments thinking that it is enough,_ they are quite wrong.  When my son was confirmed this spring I made sure he understood in no uncertain terms that he was making a public declaration and a solemn vow to God to live and die for love of Jesus Christ.  I also told him that if he did not believe all that he has been taught, that he was not to be confirmed.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Because we believe in Original Sin, and nowhere are we told that children are to be excluded from this.  That the first Christians were adults, which therefore required conversions before baptism does not pose a problem, as we see that entire households were baptized.  I'll get the verses tomorrow if you want.
> Catholics are brought into the family of God through baptism just as circumcision brought infants into the Old Covenant.  From childhood we teach our children to know, love and serve the Lord, and when they reach the age of accountability they are Confirmed. _ It is a sad truth that many people go through these sacraments thinking that it is enough,_ they are quite wrong.  When my son was confirmed this spring I made sure he understood in no uncertain terms that he was making a public declaration and a solemn vow to God to live and die for love of Jesus Christ.  I also told him that if he did not believe all that he has been taught, that he was not to be confirmed.



When a Catholic is "confirmed" are they then re-baptized through bodily immersion in water when they reach the age of accountabilty and as a show of Repentance (John's Baptism) ?


----------



## camily

libby said:


> Because we believe in Original Sin, and nowhere are we told that children are to be excluded from this.  That the first Christians were adults, which therefore required conversions before baptism does not pose a problem, as we see that entire households were baptized.  I'll get the verses tomorrow if you want.
> Catholics are brought into the family of God through baptism just as circumcision brought infants into the Old Covenant.  From childhood we teach our children to know, love and serve the Lord, and when they reach the age of accountability they are Confirmed. _ It is a sad truth that many people go through these sacraments thinking that it is enough,_ they are quite wrong.  When my son was confirmed this spring I made sure he understood in no uncertain terms that he was making a public declaration and a solemn vow to God to live and die for love of Jesus Christ.  I also told him that if he did not believe all that he has been taught, that he was not to be confirmed.



Way too many to c&p
Do Babys and children go to heaven or hell when they die?


----------



## camily

Also, I want to point out that someone got the quotes all messed up and I am quoted for saying things I didn't. I'm just sayin'......


----------



## libby

camily said:


> Way too many to c&p
> Do Babys and children go to heaven or hell when they die?



Nobody suggests that little children have committed actual sin themselves.  We do, however, have to recognize that they need a Savior, do they not?  I read through most of the article you linked and right off the bat we see that Jesus says "let them come to me.  Forbid them not..."  It seems to me that if Jesus says, "forbid them not", it logically follows that the parents_ do _have the power to forbid them.  
That "power" is keeping them from Him by not baptism them to wash away Original Sin, and then, more importantly, not teaching the children about His saving love and sacrifice.
Now this is just my musing, so don't jump all over it as though this is an _ex cathdra_ statment out of the Vatican.


----------



## camily

libby said:


> Nobody suggests that little children have committed actual sin themselves.  We do, however, have to recognize that they need a Savior, do they not?  I read through most of the article you linked and right off the bat we see that Jesus says "let them come to me.  Forbid them not..."  It seems to me that if Jesus says, "forbid them not", it logically follows that the parents_ do _have the power to forbid them.
> That "power" is keeping them from Him by not baptism them to wash away Original Sin, and then, more importantly, not teaching the children about His saving love and sacrifice.
> Now this is just my musing, so don't jump all over it as though this is an _ex cathdra_ statment out of the Vatican.



Are you suggesting that a baby/child that dies without being christened goes to hell? Or a baby/child that dies before it is old enough to understand and accept Jesus and hasn't been christened goes to hell? How about a mentally handicapped person that cannot understand?


----------



## libby

camily said:


> Are you suggesting that a baby/child that dies without being christened goes to hell? Or a baby/child that dies before it is old enough to understand and accept Jesus and hasn't been christened goes to hell? How about a mentally handicapped person that cannot understand?



Not at all.  Are you suggesting these people have no need of the Savior, Jesus Christ?


----------



## Marie

libby said:


> You're caught in a web of your own making. You challenge every other belief as a cult, you've run from every methodical discussion of the issues, and when you run out of prattle you say, "take it up with God".


 
Yea but the really great thing, is we have assurance of salvation! 
No other religion has that, and for us theres no works to obtain salvation, they only come afterward as proof of salvation.

When Christ said it is finished, the fathers wrath was completly satisified!

Christ rightousness is imputed onto us, not infused, No work or nothing we could do to contribute to our salvation, That would be a slap in Gods face as if his payment wasnt enough and our sins are covered under the blood, past present and future because the payment was made in full.
We still need to be repentant of them though.

Other religious system are all based on Man,mans rules, mans book, mans ideas, and you try to earn or merit Gods favor, and in the end you never know if your good enough. 

That in itself is what condems the individual as they wont except Gods grace, there own pride gets in they way and they try to conme to God on their terms not his.

<DIR>Mat 15:7You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:Mat 15:8"'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 
</DIR>Mat 15:9in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"


----------



## Marie

itsbob said:


> Baptism, in any church, is "Being Born Again".
> 
> Being placed below the surface of the water represents death and the dying of your current self and spirit, and surfacing from the water represents your resurrection (or being born again) in the Spirit of Christ.
> 
> Some friggin genius just took the meaning and made it into a cult.. it's actually easy to do if you can find enough weakminded individiuals to follow your lead. There's evidence of this from Coast to Coast throughout our country.. The Davidians.. The Scientologists.. The Hari Krishnas.. The Purple Sheeters.. Jim Jones.. the list is endless.. Born Agains are just an addendum to the list.


 
Actually thats very wrong Repentance and faith is how salvation takes place. Baptism is only a outward sign to other believers that you made a proffession of faith. Your correct that its symbolic of the death and resurection and dying to sin and your self. Baptism is purely symbolic the theif on the cross was never baptised yet Christ said today you will be with me in paradise.


----------



## Marie

Highlander said:


> You two nut cases are very entertaining. So, I'm supposed to believe that the 1.3 billion Catholics in this world have it all wrong and a bunch of so called born agains have it all figured out. You two are really delusional. Good luck with your life and the way YOU choose to practice your religion.


 
I have some Catholic friends that I know are saved, but I do question that they can know scripture so well, and still violate it, practicing the teachings of the church.

I heard one gentleman who had served in the RCC church all his life and when he heard the gospel clearly, he started bringing up all the teachings that were outside of scripture. The person presnting the Gospel had to tell them, that those issues were outside of the conversation of salvation. But the guy was way ahead of him when he realized he didnt need oil on his eyelids to be sent off when dying (last rights) and that 
<DIR>For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 
Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 
</DIR> he had a life time of teaching & tradition that he had to sort out against the truth and it was over whelming, that its by God Grace that we are saved and that God gives us the faith to believe as well, and that its a gift that cant be earned. We bring nothing to the table other than seeing ourselves the way God sees us and acknoweledging our sin with a broken spirit.
Works rightousness is a big deal, as steels Gods Honor and glory.

Perhaps it would be wise to create a list of doctrinal differencess and address them one by one 

'Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely" (WC)


----------



## Marie

itsbob said:


> Why was Jesus Baptized??


 
Jesus was Baptised by John to show that he was in agreement with what John was doing, as Johns Baptism was one of repentance it was an outward sign of a repentant heart, Christs first sermon was repent because the Kingdom of God is at hand.
It wasnt the rules of the Parashies, the rituals, or the blood of animals that provided salvation it was repentance and faith.



itsbob said:


> Secondly, Jesus didn't die on the cross.


 
Oh he most certainly did, they peirced his side right into the heart to make sure but he was already dead as indicated by the blood and the water that came out thats why his legs werent broken. The romans were masters of the crucifiction they knew a dead man when they seen one. It would have also cost them their life if they were wrong.


----------



## Marie

itsbob said:


> Wasn't it Jesus that said, "Those without sin, throw the first stone"?? When he approached a group of people preparing to stone a woman for adultery?
> 
> Let those amongst you without sin throw the first stone.. (paraphrase)
> 
> If what you say, he was without sin (he wasn't by the way, that comes with having a mortal body) he'd be qualified to throw the first stone under the standards he set.
> 
> 
> You thinking he was a mortal man walking the earth and was sinless is what is beyond belief.


 
Bob Mans sinfull nature "Adamic nature" is past through the seed of man Christ was not under that curse as he was born of a virgin, Fully God, Fully Man. He understood temptation as he was tempted by Satan but he did not have an Adamic sin nature


----------



## Marie

itsbob said:


> Where does it say he didn't throw the stone because he was without sin??
> 
> it doesn't.. It also doesn't say Jesus was without sin ANYwhere in the Bible..
> 
> It's just what you've been told, and what you chose to believe.


 
<DIR>2Co 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin *who knew no sin*, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 

Heb 5:9 And being madeperfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,

1Pe 1:19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of alamb without blemish or spot. 
 

</DIR>


----------



## Marie

itsbob said:


> And those tha are worthy are drinking Christ's blood, and eating his flesh..
> 
> Yep, current day, 2009.. practicing virtual cannibalism for our God(s)


 
In our faith its symbolic of the body and blood, it dosent turn into it. But were are comanded to do so as a remembrace till christ retuns.
<DIR>1Co 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. *Do this in remembrance of me*."1Co 11:25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, *in remembrance of me*."1Co 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 
1Co 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 
1Co 11:28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 
1Co 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 
1Co 11:30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 

No Mysticism, No Canibalism 
</DIR>


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> Actually I am preoccupied with God's Truth, libby, which your Church happens to butcher beyond recognition.
> 
> And as for Ananias and his wife, nowhere in that passage does it even remotely suggest they lost their salvation it only says they died so the problem is yours, Hon. You are trying to force something into Scripture that doesn't belong there.
> 
> And as for Simon, that was precisely what Peter was trying to get Simon to see...that his heart was not right with God. What is so wrong about that? So what did Peter do? He pointed that out to him. and then he tells Simon to do what? REPENT of his sins...and please notice what Peter DIDN'T tell Simon to do which was confess his sins to HIM but to GOD.
> 
> Something strange considering Peter was suppose to be the first pope and all.





> libby quote: Dodged again. If the Blood of Christ has cleansed the believer, how can the Bible say that the believer was not upright (translate to purified, sanctified or whatever) before God. If I am not understanding your theology correctly, please correct the theology. Are we covered, or cleansed, by the Blood of Christ? Is His Blood sufficient to cover our sins in front of God or not?



Perhaps you should go back and read that passage again, libby and show us where it says specifically that Simon was saved or not.  And regardless, the rebuke Peter gave Simon was appropriate to make sure the man was saved. As we all should ourselves.  

Did YOU examine YOURSELF to make sure YOU are saved?  Are YOU covered, or cleansed, by the Blood of Christ? Is His Blood sufficient to cover ALL YOUR  sins in front of God or not?

Oh that's right, you're not allowed to ask those quesions of yourself....


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Nowhere in the Bible does it state that _every _believer is sent_ directly _to Heaven, either.



Actually there's quite a number of places in God's Word that says exactly that, libby. Here is one:



> For we know that if our earthly house, a tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.  And, in fact, we groan in this one, longing to put on our house from heaven,  since, when we are clothed, we will not be found naked.  Indeed, we who are in this tent groan, burdened as we are, because we do not want to be unclothed but clothed, so that mortality may be swallowed up by life.  And the One who prepared us for this very thing is God, who gave us the Spirit as a down payment.  *Therefore, though we are always confident and know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord 2 Cor 5*--




I am already LIVING my eternal life in God's Kingdom NOW,  libby. I was bought into God's Kingdom the moment I was Saved. When I leave my earthly body behind in this world, my spirit will go directly to be WITH Jesus where I will be waiting for that Day along with all the other Believers when we will receive our NEW RESURRECTED BODIES ones in which are equipped to live in Eternity with God.

One that never wears out, one that never sins, one that lives forever with the Lord.


----------



## baydoll

> libby quote: Now back to the Holy Bible, which we agree is inerrant.  Ananias, Sapphira and Simon, all counted believers and receiving the Holy Spirit, yet lying to the HS and cast away, respectively.  OSAS?  Never saved, but fooled the Apostles who had a unique commissioning and authority??
> Golly day!




Again, dear libby, could you please show us WHERE in the Holy Bible it said that Ananis and Sapphira and Simon lost their salvation?

Waiting once again for you to point that out to us, Golly day! ......


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> The Holy Bible states (you can look this up, too) that Simon (after believing and being baptized) "was "filled with bitter gall and are in the bonds of iniquity",
> So Simon says, "Pray for me... that nothing of what you have said may come ipon me".
> Not the language of one who is assured salvation, is it?



Let's say that your reasoning in the above is the correct one, shall we? Are all those who after believing and being baptized in the Lord not allowed to 'mess up' at all afterwards? What about those who believe and repent and follow the Lord but then afterwards deny Him? Do they lose their salvation?


----------



## hotcoffee

baydoll said:


> Again, dear libby, could you please show us WHERE in the Holy Bible it said that Ananis and Sapphira and Simon lost their salvation?
> 
> Waiting once again for you to point that out to us, Golly day! ......



I am so afraid that a seeker will come to this thread and miss the whole point of the Born Again message....

Salvation is not based on the anything we can do.... being baptised [Baptist] doesn't do it.... praying to mary saying a certain number of prayers on a rosary or being sprinkled at birth [RCC] doesn't do it.... handing out flowers at the airport [Can't spell it] doesn't do it....

*Salvation is a gift from God *and in order to receive Salvation... you have to *accept it*...


----------



## PsyOps

hotcoffee said:


> I am so afraid that a seeker will come to this thread and miss the whole point of the Born Again message....
> 
> Salvation is not based on the anything we can do.... being baptised [Baptist] doesn't do it.... praying to mary saying a certain number of prayers on a rosary or being sprinkled at birth [RCC] doesn't do it.... handing out flowers at the airport [Can't spell it] doesn't do it....
> 
> *Salvation is a gift from God *and in order to receive Salvation... you have to *accept it*...


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> 
> 
> What could be true of me, Radiant? Your friend obviously used you. Her 'fruits' were lying to you so she could steal from you. Fruits: lying and stealing. What am I lying to you about? And for what purpose?







> Radiant quote: Maybe if you read this slowly you might comprehend.



 How do you know she wasn't mistaken, Radiant? How do you know she wasn't lying to you? Again, her 'fruits' give her clean away....

In Matthew 7, Jesus tells us to beware of false prophets (false believers, tares) who come to you dressed as sheep but inside they are devouring wolves. Jesus also told us how we would know them:



> "You will FULLY recognize them by their fruits. Do people pick grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? Even so, every healthy (SOUND) tree bears GOOD fruit, but the sickly (UNSOUND) tree bears BAD fruit. A GOOD tree CANNOT bear BAD FRUIT, nor can a BAD TREE bear EXCELLENT FRUIT....therefore, you will FULLY KNOW THEM BY THEIR FRUITS."



Your 'friend' obviously displayed bad fruits. Now I would like you to please show me these 'bad' fruits I am displaying towards you. 




> Radiant quote: If she was mistaken, then you may be also. Are you without sin? I think not. Where does that leave you? And where does that leave me as to who to believe



When did I say I was without sin? I will never be without sin as long as I am on this earth. Where does that leave me? FORGIVEN. A forgiven SINNER, Radiant. 

And where does that leave you as to who to believe? I really do not care to be frank with you. I believe in God. I also believe in His Word. I ALSO believe and trust in Him to Save me FROM my sins. I also trust in Him to lead me safely Home. Whether you choose to believe in the same God who is able and capable of doing these things is up to you, not me. That is your problem, not mine. 

It isn't about ME but YOU, dear Radiant. What about your heart? What does it say? Do you love God with ALL of your heart or not? Do you wish to follow HIM or do you not? Do you trust in Him to save you from ALL yours sins or do you not? Do you BELIEVE His Word or just the parts that you agree with and disregard the rest? What about your fruits, Radiant? Do you bear good fruits or bad? 

 Where does that leave YOU and what GOD believes ABOUT YOU?

And why do you say, Baydoll, let me take that speck out of your eye when you have a huge beam of timber in your own eye, Radiant? 

No wonder you cannot 'see'.


----------



## PsyOps

libby said:


> Because we believe in Original Sin, and nowhere are we told that children are to be excluded from this.  That the first Christians were adults, which therefore required conversions before baptism does not pose a problem, as we see that entire households were baptized.  I'll get the verses tomorrow if you want.
> Catholics are brought into the family of God through baptism just as circumcision brought infants into the Old Covenant.  From childhood we teach our children to know, love and serve the Lord, and when they reach the age of accountability they are Confirmed. _ It is a sad truth that many people go through these sacraments thinking that it is enough,_ they are quite wrong.  When my son was confirmed this spring I made sure he understood in no uncertain terms that he was making a public declaration and a solemn vow to God to live and die for love of Jesus Christ.  I also told him that if he did not believe all that he has been taught, that he was not to be confirmed.



So we’re back to baptism can save?  Let me ask you this… If a child is baptized, and if this baptism is would save this child in the event that they died as a child, wouldn’t that also mean they are saved as an adult and would not require the believing (committing) that Jesus commands us?  Does there come a point after this baptism that the person would be required to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior, and the baptism is no longer valid?  At what point is this?


----------



## baydoll

hotcoffee said:


> I am so afraid that a seeker will come to this thread and miss the whole point of the Born Again message....
> 
> Salvation is not based on the anything we can do.... being baptised [Baptist] doesn't do it.... praying to mary saying a certain number of prayers on a rosary or being sprinkled at birth [RCC] doesn't do it.... handing out flowers at the airport [Can't spell it] doesn't do it....
> 
> *Salvation is a gift from God *and in order to receive Salvation... you have to *accept it*...



Amen, hotcoffee, amen.


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> Radiant, for all I know, what you think are the Fruit of the Spirit is totally different from what I think. This is the reason WHY I asked you to list them for me. Also God TOLD us to judge fruits. How else would we know whom is truly from God or not? How else would we protect ourselves FROM Tares?
> 
> It's called discernment.





> Radiant: Agreed, and I discern that you really don't know what you are talking about.



How kind of you to say so, Radiant. 

I guess kindness and gentleness to others are not part of the 'fruits' taught in Catholic Land.


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> And what is this 'grace'? And how, exactly, do you 'participate' in it?







> Radiant: Sanctifying grace. You participate in it by doing the things I already listed.



So how come Paul and Silas didn't mention any of that when they were preaching to that jailer? 

Or Jesus or any other of His Apostles for that matter? 

Being as these 'sanctifying grace' is how one gets into God's Kingdom and all, we should be able to see them in God's Word.

Funny that we don't.


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> [Go back and read my post, Radiant. I said I have no clue if you are going to Heaven or not. I am not God, Dear.





> I thought you knew by discerning the fruits of the Spirit. You're right, you don't have a clue. I'm fine with that.



Radiant, I have no clue to how your life will end up and I have no clue to how your 'friend's' life will end up. I have no clue if either one of you will one day go to heaven.  Some people will repent and turn to the Lord to Save them, others won't. Look at the life of the Apostle Paul. Here was a man who prosecuted Christians. He cold-heartedly stood by while the religious crowd  stoned Stephen. If anybody bore bad fruits it was certainly Paul. Christians feared him and avoided him and rightly so. Why? Because although he was supposedly a 'Godly' man (from a very religious sect) his fruits were rotten.  That's being discerning. BUT. Paul didn't stay that way. His encounter with the Lord bought him to his knees and he repented and got right with God.  A man who bore really horrifying fruits completely turned himself around and got Saved. 

And from that day forth Paul bore GOOD fruits. 

 Using your 'friend' as an example, we obviously see her (or him) bearing 'bad' fruits that shows she (or he) is not a Child of God. Now whether she (or he) will ever repent and turn to the Lord to be Saved in the future we cannot and I definitely do not know. None of us do. Being discerning protects us from wolves who only wish to harm us RIGHT NOW. This is what is meant by being 'discerning' not whether this person will one day turn from that and call on the Lord to be Saved. THAT part is God's, not mine.


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> So you didn't repent nor believed in God at the time of your baptism.





> It was done on my behalf until I could do so myself. What is your point? That I was not saved at my baptism? I would agree.



The point is it isn't what Jesus nor what His Apostles taught. What God's Word says is totally different than what your Church says. 




> "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them *that believe on his name*:" John 1:12



If baptism is necessary for salvation, then why did the Apostle Paul say this: 



> "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." 1 Corinthians 1:17




John the Baptist's message was: 



> "*Repent ye*: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew 3:2



And then AFTERWARDS they were... 



> "... baptized of him in Jordan, *confessing their sins*." Matthew 3:6



God's Word states that baptism should occur AFTER salvation, not as a REQUIREMENT for salvation.  



> "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, *If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest*. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Acts 8:36-37





> *"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ*, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house... And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway." Acts 16:30, 31, 33



and another:



> And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue,* believed on the Lord with all his house;* and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized." Acts 18:8



and another:



> "... *they that gladly received his word *were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." Acts 2:41



and yet another:



> But* when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ,* they were baptized, both men and women." Acts 8:12




Babies cannot do this, Radiant. THAT'S my point.


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> If that was the case then Paul would have said work FOR your Salvation, Radiant. You don't work OUT something you don't have yet or hope to have one day.





> If you already have it, then what is the point in working it out? You can't work on something that is already complete (i.e. salvation). I wonder what St. Paul would think of your attempt at silly semantics.



If one makes it into the Olympics, they don't stop working out, do they? Of course not.  They continue to 'work out' because they are working towards winning the gold medal. They are still IN the Olympics. They don't stop working out. They need to continue to 'work out' because why? So that they can recieve their reward.  

And no the reward is not Salvation (which I already HAVE),  it is pleasing my Lord and Savior Jesus on the things I have done for HIM here on this earth AFTER He had Saved me.  THAT is my reward. That is my 'gold medal'. 

Hearing Him say this to me: 





> His lord said unto him, *Well done, thou good and faithful servant: *thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord. Matt 25:21


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> Obviously your friend was not following Christ. She said she was but her fruits gave her away. How do I know I am saved? Because I am trusting in CHRIST, dear, not myself. My life (especially my heart) has changed dramatically since I have been saved. AND I believe what God says that those who believes in him may HAVE eternal life.







> Once again, please read this slowly for your comprehension.
> 
> I don't know that you are lying anymore than I knew she was lying. You claim she was lying to herself, but yet you may be also.
> 
> I don't know you outside of this thread, so I have no way of determining your fruits. You are asking me to take your word for it. So did she.




Radiant, the point is you DO know your 'friend' and you DO know her 'fruits'.  And since her fruits were obviously BAD, what does that tell you? 

That she is definetly not right with God.


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> Do YOU believe that verse or not, Radiant? Was God lying to us when He spoke those words through the Apostle John? [/b]?





> Absolutely I believe it, and of course God would not lie. MAY have eternal life. The word "may" implies something that has not yet occurred.
> 
> Please read that again slowly for your comprehension.



And what does HAVE mean, Radiant?


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> Oh believe me I have, Dear. You are just one of many Catholics I have been is discussions with over the years. I pray over you all.





> Thanks, I think.




You're welcome.


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> So who (and what) are you trusting in to get you into Heaven?







> For the umpteenth time... I trust in God's grace that I must participate with. I realize you are used to the either/or type of thinking, but try to broaden your horizons and think of it in terms of both/and. Both God's grace and my participation with it.



Isn't 'grace' suppose to be a 'gift'? Isn't a 'gift' suppose to be 'free'? And if something is 'free' why are you working for it? 





> "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. *For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast*." (Ephesians 2: 6-9)


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> I'm still waiting for you to list them....





> I find this exercise ridiculous, but if you insist.
> 
> Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.



And which ones of the above are you producing right now towards me, Radiant?


----------



## Radiant1

baydoll, this has become nothing but a pissing match between you and I. You obviously are not comprehending what I'm telling you. That's okay, some people just aren't capable of getting it even if it is rather simple.

I'm confident that there is no *assurance *of salvation as you and a few others would have it. It's been proven by both logic and scripture.

Feel free to contine with your , but it makes no difference to the reality.


----------



## libby

PsyOps said:


> So we’re back to baptism can save?  Let me ask you this… If a child is baptized, and if this baptism is would save this child in the event that they died as a child, wouldn’t that also mean they are saved as an adult and would not require the believing (committing) that Jesus commands us?  Does there come a point after this baptism that the person would be required to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior, and the baptism is no longer valid?  At what point is this?



I'm happy to dialogue with you Psy, you seem to know how to disagree respectfully (for the record, Starman is a good guy, too.  IS kinda has to grow on a person, but I stll like him)
I do feel as though I am answering questions completely, and using Scripture for the basis of what I believe. 
Do infants and children (before the age of reason) need a Savior?  If so, for what reason?  We believe it is because of the Original Sin, the consequences for which all men deal with: loss of Heaven and the fallen human nature.  We believe that baptism is the washing away of original sin (prefigured, in part, by the washing away of sin that the flood waters accomplished), which simultaneously "saves"_ in a secondary sense_.  Why do we believe it has salvific value in a secondary sense?  Because we've been commanded to do it by Christ, who is our Savior.  
Lots of people here seem caught up with the "beleive in Jesus Christ" part of the salvation equation, but to the neglect of the "keep my commandments" as a necessary part.  We are to do both for salvation.  The question then becomes, "what are the commandments?".  I guess that's another thread.
Back to your question.  Once a child reaches the age of reason then they need to accept Jesus Christ themselves.  _Baptism does not save a person who has ignored the Lord and not lived for Him and loved Him._


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> No.... GOD says, Dear.





> You place yourself most high. When it comes to whether you are saved or not you could be lying, just as you claim my friend was (see above). Really, it's so YOU say.



No, GOD placed me on high with HIM, Radiant. I had nothing to do with it. I still have nothing to do with it except to believe and trust in Him. 

It's what God has said, Radiant.


----------



## hotcoffee

PsyOps said:


> So we’re back to baptism can save?


 I hope you are not serious about this statement....  Being a Baptist myself, being the great great great granddaughter of a Primative Baptist Preacher and niece of a Presbyterian Preacher... I've heard this debate my whole life....

Back in the day... an evangelical preacher would wade out into the water to his hips and people would come from far and wide to be dunked....

Back in the day...  there was no "pre-baptism counseling".  The paster didn't visit the house or require you to come to discuss the baptism with him first... so that he could discuss the symbol of baptism  and how it is different from the Baptism by the Spirit....



PsyOps said:


> Let me ask you this… If a child is baptized, and if this baptism is would save this child in the event that they died as a child, wouldn’t that also mean they are saved as an adult and would not require the believing (committing) that Jesus commands us?



_If a child professes, makes a public declaration of faith and asks Jesus Christ into their life.... and the child is therefore [because of asking Jesus Christ into their life] Baptized by the Spirit._... then yes... they would be saved as an adult....

But... if a child is baptized as a child... *by family*... [not baptized by the Spirit] then it is *merely a public promise* made by the family and friends to do the best they can to bring the child up in a way that would lead the child to Christ.



PsyOps said:


> Does there come a point after this baptism that the person would be required to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior, and the baptism is no longer valid?



The profession of faith, the Acceptance of Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour allows the Baptism by the Spirit.  

Baptism by water alone [even if someone tells you it's holy water] is just a bath.



PsyOps said:


> At what point is this?



Are you still confused?  Have you prayed about the answer?


----------



## baydoll

Radiant1 said:


> baydoll, this has become nothing but a pissing match between you and I. You obviously are not comprehending what I'm telling you. That's okay, some people just aren't capable of getting it even if it is rather simple.
> 
> I'm confident that there is no *assurance *of salvation as you and a few others would have it. It's been proven by both logic and scripture.
> 
> Feel free to contine with your , but it makes no difference to the reality.



So which fruits are you showing right now, Radiant?

Oh that's right...Catholic ones. 

Figures.


----------



## baydoll

> Radiant:
> For the future, I would kindly ask you not to use my name quite so much during dialogue, as it comes across as abrasive and I'm sure you don't intend to be so. Also, if you could quote properly that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.






> You should not accept thanks for something you have yet to do.
> 
> You seem proud of yourself, what fruit of the Spirit does that fall under?



I am proud in what way?


----------



## hotcoffee

libby said:


> I'm happy to dialogue with you Psy, you seem to know how to disagree respectfully (for the record, Starman is a good guy, too.  IS kinda has to grow on a person, but I stll like him)
> I do feel as though I am answering questions completely, and using Scripture for the basis of what I believe.
> Do infants and children (before the age of reason) need a Savior?  If so, for what reason?  We believe it is because of the Original Sin, the consequences for which all men deal with: loss of Heaven and the fallen human nature.  We believe that baptism is the washing away of original sin (prefigured, in part, by the washing away of sin that the flood waters accomplished), which simultaneously "saves"_ in a secondary sense_.  Why do we believe it has salvific value in a secondary sense?  Because we've been commanded to do it by Christ, who is our Savior.
> Lots of people here seem caught up with the "beleive in Jesus Christ" part of the salvation equation, but to the neglect of the "keep my commandments" as a necessary part.  We are to do both for salvation.  The question then becomes, "what are the commandments?".  I guess that's another thread.
> Back to your question.  Once a child reaches the age of reason then they need to accept Jesus Christ themselves.  _Baptism does not save a person who has ignored the Lord and not lived for Him and loved Him._



Respectfully.... this is a huge bite of hogwash.... I now understand why the priests made up purgatory.... it's so that they can ease their conscience for misguiding you so....


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> How do you know Annanias and his wife are in Hell, Radiant?





> I don't. I don't know that they are in Heaven either. That's the point.



No the point is the Catholics point to this passage to 'prove' that one can lose their salvation.  BUT nowhere in that passage does it say they lost their salvation.  

Over and over again, this point seems to be woefully lost on the Catholics.


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> So which fruits are you showing right now, Radiant?
> 
> Oh that's right...Catholic ones.
> 
> Figures.



Y'know Babydoll, I'm choosing not to dialogue with you because of your abrasive style.
To be specific, since you are on this "judge by fruits" thing, let's consider this.  Way back_ Radiant asked you to stop using her name over and over _in a post because it was, well, she said, "abrasive".  Oddly enough this habit of your grated on my nerves, too.  
You have continued to do what you know is bothersome to your sister in Christ; what kind of fruit is that?  Is dropping that habit a matter of doctrine?  Is there some essential reason you must keep doing that?  Nope, I think not.

Those are your fruits.


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> So what did Jesus mean when He told Nicodemus that he needed to be Born Again in order to get into His Kingdom, Radiant? Isn't that salvation?





> Radiant: It means baptism. You know, where one receives the sanctifying grace that one needs to partipate with in order to obtain salvation.



Then Jesus must have not received that memo, Radiant: 

"Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. *For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works,* lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2: 6-9)


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Y'know Babydoll, I'm choosing not to dialogue with you because of your abrasive style.
> To be specific, since you are on this "judge by fruits" thing, let's consider this.  Way back_ Radiant asked you to stop using her name over and over _in a post because it was, well, she said, "abrasive".  Oddly enough this habit of your grated on my nerves, too.
> You have continued to do what you know is bothersome to your sister in Christ; what kind of fruit is that?  Is dropping that habit a matter of doctrine?  Is there some essential reason you must keep doing that?  Nope, I think not.
> 
> Those are your fruits.



And you guys show nothing but good fruits towards us, correct?


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> So we have something in common after all! I was baptized and raised a Protestant too. I too left the Protestant church. Now I'm a Christian!





> Oh, I'm thrilled. I'm sure the billions of Catholics and Protestants worldwide are dismayed to know that they are not Christian according to you.
> 
> By the way, if you're not Catholic or Orthodox, you're still a Protestant even you if you don't claim a denomination.




Radiant, just because one is a Catholic or Orthodox or Protestant or whatever does not make one a Christian anymore than being in a garage makes one a car.


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> Oh so I guess Paul and Silas didn't get your Church's Memo on How To Get Saved....
> 
> And according to the Catholic Church even if you believe in God's Son that still is not a guarantee of eternal life...
> 
> I guess God didn't get that memo either.....





> God doesn't need a memo for His own will. I pray He tapes His memo on your forehead for your edification.



He's done something far better than that, Radiant. He's placed His 'memo' deep within my heart.


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> Libby, perhaps you can help Radiant out, Dear...where in that passage does it say those two lost their salvation?





> They never had it to begin with. That's the point.




Well then why does Libby keep saying they LOST it?


----------



## hotcoffee

All this talk about fruits... misses the point...

For instance... did you know that a tomato is a fruit and for years it was considered poison?  Good ole tomato... hated for years... and yet such a juicy fruit...

Also there is the grapefruit... man that one very misunderstood fruit....

Think I'm just jiving you?  No... there's a point...  fruits are nothing without acceptance....

Without acceptance you will not see Heaven....  You must accept Jesus Christ as you personal saviour... when [or if] you do... then you will be Baptized by the Spirit... you will be washed clean and you will be new....

Do you remember the first time you bit into the fruit of the grapefruit?  You will remember the Baptism by the Spirit... you will remember that day for the rest of your life....


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> And the cloud part is what, exactly?





> Spirit. You know, what comes to a person when they are baptized with water.



So did the people in that passage get wet?


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> So how do you know it SPECIFIALLY means BAPTISM in that passage with Nicodemus?





> Because it says "water".



AND water is also very often referred to as a *spiritual* cleansing by the Word and the Spirit. 

So why couldn't Jesus be referring to the inward work of the Holy Spirit by His Word, cleansing of a soul, rather than baptism?


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> AND if it is baptism, how do you know that it is the cause, rather than the sign, of regeneration?
> 
> In Scripture, water is also often referred to as a spiritual cleansing by the Word and the Spirit.
> 
> So that being the case, then why couldn't Jesus be referring to the inward work of the Holy Spirit by His Word, cleansing of a soul, rather than baptism?





> That's what baptism is baydoll.



Precisely, Radiant.


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> How do you know Paul meant he would lose his salvation in that passage?





> Because I read it in its context (ch. 9&10).



Chapter 9 and 10? Can you be a little more specific please?


----------



## hotcoffee

baydoll said:


> Chapter 9 and 10? Can you be a little more specific please?



Chapter 9 & 10 of which book?  Acts?


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> And you guys show nothing but good fruits towards us, correct?



Aside from calling you "babydoll" in my most recent post, which was an effort to get the point across, please point out where R1 or I did treat you, personally, with the blatant disrepect you have done with R1.  Do not confuse this with a doctrinal difference.
Now, your defense of your bad fruit is, effectively, that we did it, too?

Why did you ignore R1's request?  You knew it offended her, but you did it anyway.  Not once or twice, but continually since the request was made.


----------



## baydoll

> Originally Posted by baydoll
> And again, what is this 'grace' you keep talking about and how does one 'participate' with it?





> I wouldn't think I should have to spell it out for you, but apparently I do.
> 
> Christianity 101:
> Sanctifying grace, also known as justifying grace, is that which is given to us when infused with the Holy Spirit at baptism without which we could not participate in the divine life. One participates with it, by doing those things that I and others (PsyOPs for example) have outlined earlier in this thread.



No, that's Catholicism 101 where Paul and Silas being good Catholics, answered the jailer in Acts 16 this when he asked this simple yet profound question, "What must I do to be saved?" here is the Catholic answer: 


"...  first you have to go to confession to a priest, who will forgive your sins (sort of). And then you have to attend mass every Sunday, and take communion at least once a year. Then you have to ask God's mother, that's Mary, to intercede for you, because without her help God can't give you any grace, and you need grace to be saved. And it wouldn't hurt to buy a few Mass cards, and do some penance, and earn as many indulgences as you can. Don't be too eager, because after you die you still have to pay the price for your own sins in Purgatory, which is a really terrible place where you burn, burn and burn some more. Forget this stuff we've been preaching about grace and faith in Christ being sufficient. What Jesus did was not enough, no, not at all. And take care to not commit any mortal sins, Mr. warden. If you happen to still have a mortal sin on your soul, all bets are off. There, mister warden, doesn't that make you feel much better?" 

The CHRISTIAN reply? Is this:

Paul's reply, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." (Acts 16:25-31)

THAT'S Christianity 101. 

Too bad the Catholic Church flunked it big times.


----------



## baydoll

libby said:


> Aside from calling you "babydoll" in my most recent post, which was an effort to get the point across, please point out where R1 or I did treat you, personally, with the blatant disrepect you have done with R1.  Do not confuse this with a doctrinal difference.
> Now, your defense of your bad fruit is, effectively, that we did it, too?
> 
> Why did you ignore R1's request?  You knew it offended her, but you did it anyway.  Not once or twice, but continually since the request was made.



Okey dokey if it makes you guys feel better I will refrain from calling her name.

Sorry Radiant. Or should I call you 'R'? 

So what about you guys? Are you bearing good fruits or not?


----------



## baydoll

hotcoffee said:


> Chapter 9 & 10 of which book?  Acts?



I have no idea, hotcoffee. That's why I asked her to narrow it down a bit for me.


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> Well then why does Libby keep saying they LOST it?



The point is that you guys have a theological problem on your hands.  Keeping in mind that the Bible was not separated into chapter and verse when it was written.  Go back to Acts 4 we see that the community was "all filled with the Holy Spirit" vs.31.  In vs. 32 we see that they were of one heart and mind.
Ananias and Sapphira then committed their sin, fell down dead, and "great fear came upon all who heard of it." You suggest that they went straight to Heaven here?  Why was everyone afraid?  They should have been rejoicing!  Imagine lying to the Holy Spirit and going straight to Heaven for it!  Talk about a free ride!
But for a second, let's pretend that they did go straight to Heaven, what of their deaths?  Was it punishment for their sin?  If you say "yes", then we have agreement that there is temporal punishment for the sins we commit.  Temporal punishment??  But, but, but... doesn't that mean Christ's Sacrifice was not sufficient?  NO!  That is not what it means.  Temporal punishment is Divine Justice!
So, if your position is that they were OSAS, then you have to admit that they suffered temporal punishment for their sin.  If your position is that they went to hell, then you must simutaneously say that they had salvation at one time, when they were of one heart and mind with the community, and that they lost that salvation.


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> Okey dokey if it makes you guys feel better I will refrain from calling her name.
> 
> Sorry Radiant. Or should I call you 'R'?
> 
> So what about you guys? Are you bearing good fruits or not?



Not always, to be sure.


----------



## libby

hotcoffee said:


> Respectfully.... this is a huge bite of hogwash.... I now understand why the priests made up purgatory.... it's so that they can ease their conscience for misguiding you so....



Calling my faith "hogwash" is respectful?  I don't think so.  
Do you think you can provide specifics as to why you disagree with this so vehemently?


----------



## hotcoffee

libby said:


> Calling my faith "hogwash" is respectful?  I don't think so.
> Do you think you can provide specifics as to why you disagree with this so vehemently?



Actually... I used the term hogwash to clean up the word that first came to my mind.... which had to do with bodily functions....

I cannot provide any more specifics to you because the whole thing you base your faith on is fake....  there is no biblical foundation for what you said... and plenty of us have quoted the scription... from when John was Baptizing and Jesus arrived... and when Nicodemus questioned being born again....

Jesus didn't say anything about believe and I'll consider letting you into Heaven as your religion teaches...


----------



## libby

hotcoffee said:


> Actually... I used the term hogwash to clean up the word that first came to my mind.... which had to do with bodily functions....
> 
> I cannot provide any more specifics to you because the whole thing you base your faith on is fake....  there is no biblical foundation for what you said... and plenty of us have quoted the scription... from when John was Baptizing and Jesus arrived... and when Nicodemus questioned being born again....
> 
> Jesus didn't say anything about believe and I'll consider letting you into Heaven as your religion teaches...



Jesus said to believe and obey.  There are myriad verses in which He tells us to do as we've been commanded.  That doing is the evidence that we believe.


----------



## ItalianScallion

libby said:


> I'm happy to dialogue with you Psy, you seem to know how to disagree respectfully (for the record, Starman is a good guy, too.  IS kinda has to grow on a person, but I stll like him)



Thank you for tolerating me until I "grow on you".  
No one realizes more than I that I am that way but my "heart" usually is not seen until we meet in person. I'm sooo glad you still dialogue with me Libby, I really mean that. I miss MeMe though... 
I hope ours is always an "agreement or difference of opinion" and NEVER personal. I promise you that it will always be that way with me no matter how "heated" our posts get. 
I can't wait to meet you someday. I think we should all get together and have a cookout and.....are you ready for this????....no one can bring up religious stuff at all during our time together...That shouldn't be hard since we've said it ALL on here, right? 
Anyone up for it???


----------



## libby

ItalianScallion said:


> Thank you for tolerating me until I "grow on you".
> No one realizes more than I that I am that way but my "heart" usually is not seen until we meet in person. I'm sooo glad you still dialogue with me Libby, I really mean that. I miss MeMe though...
> I hope ours is always an "agreement or difference of opinion" and NEVER personal. I promise you that it will always be that way with me no matter how "heated" our posts get.
> I can't wait to meet you someday. I think we should all get together and have a cookout and.....are you ready for this????....no one can bring up religious stuff at all during our time together...That shouldn't be hard since we've said it ALL on here, right?
> Anyone up for it???



I thought of that just this weekend.  Somehow I doubt my husband would want me to go out to meet a bunch of strange men, though.  Surely your wives would object, too, being that R1, Marie, Baydoll and I are all women!


----------



## Marie

Highlander said:


> Let's educate ourselves to try to better understand where our 2-3 BAC come from. There seem to be some phycological isues involved that we should consider.
> 
> Born Again Brainwashing (Persuasion and Brainwashing Techniques Being Used On The Public Today) June 6, 2005
> 
> How old is this born again Christian cult that is in the USA? - Yahoo! Answers
> 
> Are Her Born Again Christian Relatives Caught Up in a Cult?
> 
> COMMONLY USED BRAINWASHING TECHNIQUES
> 
> Google Answers: born again
> 
> Born again christians [Archive] - JREF Forum


 
You might find this an interesting read by Jc Ryle Enjoy!


----------



## Im_Me

ItalianScallion said:


> Thank you for tolerating me until I "grow on you".
> No one realizes more than I that I am that way but my "heart" usually is not seen until we meet in person. I'm sooo glad you still dialogue with me Libby, I really mean that. I miss MeMe though...
> I hope ours is always an "agreement or difference of opinion" and NEVER personal. I promise you that it will always be that way with me no matter how "heated" our posts get.
> I can't wait to meet you someday. I think we should all get together and have a cookout and.....are you ready for this????....no one can bring up religious stuff at all during our time together...That shouldn't be hard since we've said it ALL on here, right?
> Anyone up for it???





Although I'm glad to see myself mentioned: No!.... I'm not getting back into this un-God-ly mess.  

If you don't think someone (even a large green woman with nasal issues) has better things to do than argue over who is the most Godly, you have not walked in another's shoes.

I pray to God for Grace and Mercy for myself and for all who seek Him and Worship Him, however they choose to do it.

Amen, brother friend. (If you really missed me you'd work on that name!)


----------



## ItalianScallion

libby said:


> I thought of that just this weekend.  Somehow I doubt my husband would want me to go out to meet a bunch of strange men, though.  Surely your wives would object, too, being that R1, Marie, Baydoll and I are all women!


Options:
Bring your husband
We'll meet at your house
Video tape the meeting
If we're all Christians, what's there to be worried about???
We can meet at a public place
5 women and 2 men, IMHO, we're hormoneally outnumbered so whose really in danger here?? 


Im_Me said:


> If you don't think someone (even a large green woman with nasal issues) has better things to do than argue over who is the most Godly, you have not walked in another's shoes.
> Amen, brother friend. (If you really missed me you'd work on that name!)


Did you miss the line where I said: "no religious issues would be brought up"??
What's wrong with my name? Even Shakespeare said: "what's in a name"?
What if I called myself the "Italian Stallion"? Then you'd say I was conceited or stuck on myself or full of myself...


----------



## Im_Me

ItalianScallion said:


> Did you miss the line where I said: "no religious issues would be brought up"??
> What's wrong with my name? Even Shakespeare said: "what's in a name"?
> What if I called myself the "Italian Stallion"? Then you'd say I was conceited or stuck on myself or full of myself...



I meant MY NAME.  I am not a Meme...How about just calling me IM?:

P.S.  You'll always be Uncle Bill to me.


----------



## PsyOps

libby said:


> I'm happy to dialogue with you Psy, you seem to know how to disagree respectfully (for the record, Starman is a good guy, too.  IS kinda has to grow on a person, but I stll like him)
> I do feel as though I am answering questions completely, and using Scripture for the basis of what I believe.
> Do infants and children (before the age of reason) need a Savior?  If so, for what reason?  We believe it is because of the Original Sin, the consequences for which all men deal with: loss of Heaven and the fallen human nature.  We believe that baptism is the washing away of original sin (prefigured, in part, by the washing away of sin that the flood waters accomplished), which simultaneously "saves"_ in a secondary sense_.  Why do we believe it has salvific value in a secondary sense?  Because we've been commanded to do it by Christ, who is our Savior.
> Lots of people here seem caught up with the "beleive in Jesus Christ" part of the salvation equation, but to the neglect of the "keep my commandments" as a necessary part.  We are to do both for salvation.  The question then becomes, "what are the commandments?".  I guess that's another thread.
> Back to your question.  Once a child reaches the age of reason then they need to accept Jesus Christ themselves.  _Baptism does not save a person who has ignored the Lord and not lived for Him and loved Him._



But it was not the flood waters that cleansed the earth during the time of Noah.  It was God.  He simply used water as a means to accomplish this.  God could have used anything: water, fire, massive earthquake, massive meteor… And it wasn’t water that saved Noah and the others.  It was God.  The same is true with baptism.  It’s not the water or the act of baptism that saves us.  I thought you had agreed with this.

It is absolutely true that infants, and children that don’t yet have discernable minds, are in need of a savior, and they have that in Jesus, not baptism.  It’s my belief that they are not condemned until they are truly able to understand right from wrong AND that they can understand that there is one that can save them from damnation.  

My interpretation of Jesus’ command for us to be baptized is meant for those that make that decision.  Not making that decision for someone else.  One cannot obey God’s commands unless they first believe.  It has to be a personal conscious decision.  You said we have to do both for salvation.  How does an infant do both?

But you answered my question but I’m not sure I go along with that.  The thinking is almost along the lines of: “we can tide them over until they can make their own decisions about it”.  So the question I would have is, what about all the infants and children who were not baptized and, perhaps, died before they became of age to make their own decision about it?


----------



## libby

PsyOps said:


> But it was not the flood waters that cleansed the earth during the time of Noah.  It was God.  He simply used water as a means to accomplish this.  God could have used anything: water, fire, massive earthquake, massive meteor… And it wasn’t water that saved Noah and the others.  It was God.  The same is true with baptism.  It’s not the water or the act of baptism that saves us.  I thought you had agreed with this.
> 
> It is absolutely true that infants, and children that don’t yet have discernable minds, are in need of a savior, and they have that in Jesus, not baptism.  It’s my belief that they are not condemned until they are truly able to understand right from wrong AND that they can understand that there is one that can save them from damnation.
> 
> My interpretation of Jesus’ command for us to be baptized is meant for those that make that decision.  Not making that decision for someone else.  One cannot obey God’s commands unless they first believe.  It has to be a personal conscious decision.  You said we have to do both for salvation.  How does an infant do both?
> 
> But you answered my question but I’m not sure I go along with that.  The thinking is almost along the lines of: “we can tide them over until they can make their own decisions about it”.  So the question I would have is, what about all the infants and children who were not baptized and, perhaps, died before they became of age to make their own decision about it?



Of course it was God that saved, but He chose to use water to effect it.  God could have saved us in 10,000 different ways, but He chose to do it as a man. God using His own creation, whether water or flesh and blood, does not diminish His Power.
To the infants issue.  If infants need a Savior, then it begs the question "from what?", since they haven't sinned.  The answer is Original Sin, which we have all inherited via Adam.  If not Original Sin, then what?  What does Protestant theology say that infants need to be saved from? (this is a sincere question, as I have no idea)
Just as you all trust in God's Infinite Mercy on those who die before having a chance to accept Jesus Christ, so I trust in Him for children who were never baptized.
Baptism, like circumcision, is bringing the individual into the family of God.  It is a promise that the parents make to God to "train up a child in the way of the Lord".
Do you assume that of all the "entire households" that Scripture tells us were baptized, not one of them had a young child in it?


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Of course it was God that saved, but He chose to use water to effect it.  God could have saved us in 10,000 different ways, but He chose to do it as a man. God using His own creation, whether water or flesh and blood, does not diminish His Power.
> To the infants issue.  If infants need a Savior, then it begs the question "from what?", since they haven't sinned.  The answer is Original Sin, which we have all inherited via Adam.  If not Original Sin, then what?  What does Protestant theology say that infants need to be saved from? (this is a sincere question, as I have no idea)
> Just as you all trust in God's Infinite Mercy on those who die before having a chance to accept Jesus Christ, so I trust in Him for children who were never baptized.
> Baptism, like circumcision, is bringing the individual into the family of God.  It is a promise that the parents make to God to "train up a child in the way of the Lord".
> Do you assume that of all the "entire households" that Scripture tells us were baptized, not one of them had a young child in it?



libby, when my infant son was about three months old, my wife and I had him "dedicated to God" at a regular church service where her mom attended.
(No sprinkling, No water, just a prayer of dedicating the child to God)
The pastor did not ask if I was a member of his church (we weren't) nor did the pastor have any hesitancy in agreeing to make the presentation during his normal service. We just asked and he obliged because in our faith God accepts children whether they are of "church membership" or not.

I understand, however, that in the RCC doctrinal teaching, a child *must* be aligned with the Roman Catholic Church through the parents and is actually baptized into the RCC faith. So it is not really a baptism to bring the child into the "family of God" but to bring the child into the family of the Roman Catholic Faith.
True?


----------



## PsyOps

Nucklesack said:


> Do you believe the Noah ... story is a parable or an actual event?



I wish I had a short "yes" or "no" answer for you.

We know there was a catastrophic flood.  Science even admits this.  There is apparent evidence of some sort lumber-looking material seen on a cliff of Mt. Ararat.  I'm inclined to believe it's just a parable that explains that horrible period of time; I'm not certain how life and all the species survived it, but it's obvious they did.

The non-believing sect of this world has posed a good argument to dismiss the Noah account: how did Noah get all those animals to cooperate; how did they all fit on a boat that was really not designed to fix them all; how did he keep the predators from killing the prey; how did he keep them all fed for so long.

My only answer to this is: with God anything is possible.  You simply have to believe in the sovereign power of God.  That all being said, God had a purpose for purging the earth of the growing sin in man.  As I read the account of the Bible describing the sin of those days, I imagine them to be far worse than we are today.  God wanted to wipe the slate clean.  Why?  I don’t really know.  Because we are essentially right back to that point now.  In any event I believe this is how God chose to describe how he purged the earth of all the sin.  A parable of sorts that has some real historical and scientific proof to it.  Was there really a Noah that built a giant ark and loaded up all the species of animals?  I really don’t know.  Knowing whether he did or didn’t doesn’t change anything for me.  

Just as I can’t explain how the whole flood event happened I also can’t explain how God caused life to begin.  But life does exist.  I choose to believe God described a lot of things in really simple terms (parable) so we can understand it to the degree that it was God that made it happen, and to leave some mystery in it for us to discover some of the answers.  One thing to consider is… the manuscripts that were written; the ones that are now translated into the bible we read today, were written for very uneducated and simple people.  They were written in very simple terms to cover a potentially very large audience.  I think God wanted to keep things fairly simple.  That’s why Jesus used parables and that’s why God used them as well.

I know some literalists will come along and tell me how wrong I am.  That’s fine.  It makes no difference to my salvation.  I don’t think God will relinquish my salvation because I don’t believe in the literal account of Adam and Eve or the flood.  I know there is God (Yehweh) and don’t need the absolute facts of these stories to convince me.  Just looking at the world around me and the wonder of life is enough proof for me.  Seeing a child being conceived and watching it grow, and all the body parts being perfectly assigned to their proper places, and being born and grow and learn; and this being duplicated billions of times over is enough for me.  We spend an awful lot of time questioning the possibility of the flood or the creation account and not enough time seeing the miracle of life around us as enough evidence of a creator.  I’m satisfied.

Sorry for being so long-winded.


----------



## PsyOps

libby said:


> Of course it was God that saved, but He chose to use water to effect it.  God could have saved us in 10,000 different ways, but He chose to do it as a man. God using His own creation, whether water or flesh and blood, does not diminish His Power.
> To the infants issue.  If infants need a Savior, then it begs the question "from what?", since they haven't sinned.  The answer is Original Sin, which we have all inherited via Adam.  If not Original Sin, then what?  What does Protestant theology say that infants need to be saved from? (this is a sincere question, as I have no idea)
> Just as you all trust in God's Infinite Mercy on those who die before having a chance to accept Jesus Christ, so I trust in Him for children who were never baptized.
> Baptism, like circumcision, is bringing the individual into the family of God.  It is a promise that the parents make to God to "train up a child in the way of the Lord".
> Do you assume that of all the "entire households" that Scripture tells us were baptized, not one of them had a young child in it?



Actually the water did not save.  It purged.  It got rid of the impurities.  It was God that saved.  And when God chose to provide us our salvation He chose a man, not water.  But you seem to not want to answer the question: If a child is not baptized before it dies, is that child doomed to damnation or will God have mercy on them?  If I have a child and chose not to baptized him, but rather wait until he is older to make up his own mind, but he dies as a child unable to make that decision yet, what is his fate?


----------



## Marie

ItalianScallion said:


> Options:
> Bring your husband
> We'll meet at your house
> Video tape the meeting
> If we're all Christians, what's there to be worried about???
> We can meet at a public place
> 5 women and 2 men, IMHO, we're hormoneally outnumbered so whose really in danger here??
> 
> Did you miss the line where I said: "no religious issues would be brought up"??
> What's wrong with my name? Even Shakespeare said: "what's in a name"?
> What if I called myself the "Italian Stallion"? Then you'd say I was conceited or stuck on myself or full of myself...


 
Id be happy to show up, but I cant promise that I could/would refrain from talking about the thing I love the most.


----------



## libby

PsyOps said:


> Actually the water did not save.  It purged.  It got rid of the impurities.  It was God that saved.  And when God chose to provide us our salvation He chose a man, not water.  But you seem to not want to answer the question: If a child is not baptized before it dies, is that child doomed to damnation or will God have mercy on them?  If I have a child and chose not to baptized him, but rather wait until he is older to make up his own mind, but he dies as a child unable to make that decision yet, what is his fate?



Do you suppose I know all of the ways of God?  I'm doing the best I can, but I do not claim to know all the answers.  The Church teaches that we trust in God's Mercy.


----------



## libby

> PsyOps said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the water did not save.  It purged.  It got rid of the impurities.  It was God that saved.  And when God chose to provide us our salvation He chose a man, not water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said that God saved.  Are you denying that He used water to effect that cleansing/purging, or whatever you want to call it?
> 
> God did not choose a man, He became man.  He chose to use the means of flesh and blood of humanity to save us.  It could have been done any way He wanted.
Click to expand...


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Do you suppose I know all of the ways of God?  I'm doing the best I can, but I do not claim to know all the answers.  The Church teaches that we trust in God's Mercy.



Hmmm... not quite true, my dear libby. I seem to recall from my research that the Vatican made it quite clear that infants who were not baptized would go to hell - unless they were baptized into the RCC.

Only just recently, an article appeared where a Vatican spokesman stated that the RCC is now having a second consideration of their original teachings regarding infants and that perhaps they could be saved through the Mercy of God.  So in other words, the RCC is still not officially clear on this.

I will look these teachings and the article up and post them here later.


----------



## Im_Me

Starman3000m said:


> Hmmm... not quite true, my dear libby. I seem to recall from my research that the Vatican made it quite clear that infants who were not baptized would go to hell - unless they were baptized into the RCC.
> 
> Only just recently, an article appeared where a Vatican spokesman stated that the RCC is now having a second consideration of their original teachings regarding infants and that perhaps they could be saved through the Mercy of God.  So in other words, the RCC is still not officially clear on this.
> 
> I will look these teachings and the article up and post them here later.



http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html


----------



## PsyOps

libby said:


> I said that God saved.  Are you denying that He used water to effect that cleansing/purging, or whatever you want to call it?



God uses all sorts of instruments to accomplish His will.  Water (in the flood) was used to purge the earth of the sin of the earth.  It was God that saved the survivors.  Water was that same symbol used to wash away our sins while Jesus, was the tool used to save us.  Baptism, through water, symbolizes the washing away of sin, not the saving of our souls.  I am simply trying to make the point that infant baptism is not necessary.  Don’t get me wrong about this.  I respect the Catholic Church’s practice of this; I just happen to believe it isn’t necessary.  And in so many cases I think it is conveyed that being baptized as a child the child grows up believing they are saved through this baptism rather than actually having to make a true commitment to Christ.



libby said:


> God did not choose a man, He became man.  He chose to use the means of flesh and blood of humanity to save us.  It could have been done any way He wanted.



You're right.  I worded that wrong.  God chose to use Jesus, His son, a human being of the flesh.  And you made a more perfect point than you may realize by saying "It could have been done any way He wanted".  God could have simply made our salvation through baptism.  But He chose a man.  This is the very reason why baptism is not the means in which we are saved in any point in our lives.


----------



## PsyOps

libby said:


> Do you suppose I know all of the ways of God?  I'm doing the best I can, but I do not claim to know all the answers.  The Church teaches that we trust in God's Mercy.



It seems I hit a nerve and I'm sorry.  I'm really not trying to corner you.  I'm trying to get a better understanding of the Catholic Church.  During that process I aim to debate you some things.  You seem very knowledgeable about the RCC so it makes sense to me to ask you engage on these questions.  It's not my intent to corner you.


----------



## Starman3000m

Im_Me said:


> http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html



ITC-LIMBO Apr-20-2007 (1,240 words) xxxi

Vatican commission: Limbo reflects 'restrictive view of salvation'

By John Thavis
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- After several years of study, the Vatican's International Theological Commission said *there are good reasons to hope that babies who die without being baptized go to heaven.*

In a document published April 20, the commission said the traditional concept of limbo -- as a place where unbaptized infants spend eternity but without communion with God -- seemed to reflect an "unduly restrictive view of salvation."

The church continues to teach that, because of original sin, baptism is the ordinary way of salvation for all people and urges parents to baptize infants, the document said.
CNS STORY: Vatican commission: Limbo reflects 'restrictive view of salvation'

"Reasons to hope" is the same as the RCC being UNSURE!

You are either sure in your faith or you are not. No in-between when it comes to Salvation and God's Truth.


----------



## Starman3000m

(article excerpt - bold, mine)

*The definition of Florence that unbaptized infants are punished in the fire*

*The Council of Florence (1438-1445) repeated the doctrine of Carthage that infants who die without baptism have the punishment of fire in hell with the devil.* Florence defined that all who die outside of the Church are cast into the fire and that there is no exception whatsoever. This includes unbaptized infants because they are outside of the Church.

“The Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, nor heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church.”

It is expressly stated that there are no exceptions and that “none” who die outside of the Church can but go into the fire with the devil. Florence is to be taken at its word for, as was defined at Vatican I, dogmas must be accepted “in the sense once declared” and infants are included in the express universality of the definition.

Infants Suffer Fire and Limbo is a Pelagian Fable

*Rome teaches "another Jesus" and "another gospel"*

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
(2 Corinthians 11:4)

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: (Galatians 1:6)


----------



## Im_Me

Starman3000m said:


> ITC-LIMBO Apr-20-2007 (1,240 words) xxxi
> 
> Vatican commission: Limbo reflects 'restrictive view of salvation'
> 
> By John Thavis
> Catholic News Service
> 
> VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- After several years of study, the Vatican's International Theological Commission said *there are good reasons to hope that babies who die without being baptized go to heaven.*
> 
> In a document published April 20, the commission said the traditional concept of limbo -- as a place where unbaptized infants spend eternity but without communion with God -- seemed to reflect an "unduly restrictive view of salvation."
> 
> The church continues to teach that, because of original sin, baptism is the ordinary way of salvation for all people and urges parents to baptize infants, the document said.
> CNS STORY: Vatican commission: Limbo reflects 'restrictive view of salvation'
> 
> "Reasons to hope" is the same as the RCC being UNSURE!
> 
> You are either sure in your faith or you are not. No in-between when it comes to Salvation and God's Truth.




"The truth is that we really don't know much about God's judgments - and the Church is always hesitant to define what specific people are in heaven or hell since only God can truly judge the heart. That is why the process of canonization of a saint, which declares that the saint is definitely in heaven, is so complex and careful. We do not know what happens to unbaptized babies. We can only speculate because this is not something that God has chosen to reveal to us. However, the Church does officially teach about Purgatory. " Quote from Jeffrey Arrowood, MTS


----------



## Im_Me

Starman3000m said:


> (article excerpt - bold, mine)
> 
> *The definition of Florence that unbaptized infants are punished in the fire*
> 
> *The Council of Florence (1438-1445) repeated the doctrine of Carthage that infants who die without baptism have the punishment of fire in hell with the devil.* Florence defined that all who die outside of the Church are cast into the fire and that there is no exception whatsoever. This includes unbaptized infants because they are outside of the Church.
> 
> “The Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, nor heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church.”
> 
> It is expressly stated that there are no exceptions and that “none” who die outside of the Church can but go into the fire with the devil. Florence is to be taken at its word for, as was defined at Vatican I, dogmas must be accepted “in the sense once declared” and infants are included in the express universality of the definition.
> 
> Infants Suffer Fire and Limbo is a Pelagian Fable
> 
> *Rome teaches "another Jesus" and "another gospel"*
> 
> For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
> (2 Corinthians 11:4)
> 
> I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: (Galatians 1:6)



Another history lesson.  The Church is moving on now.....When will you?


----------



## Starman3000m

Im_Me said:


> "The truth is that we really don't know much about God's judgments - and the Church is always hesitant to define what specific people are in heaven or hell since only God can truly judge the heart. That is why the process of canonization of a saint, which declares that the saint is definitely in heaven, is so complex and careful. We do not know what happens to unbaptized babies. We can only speculate because this is not something that God has chosen to reveal to us. However, the Church does officially teach about Purgatory. " Quote from Jeffrey Arrowood, MTS



The Holy Bible states exactly what God's Judgments are; who is saved and who is not saved.  It's that the RCC is teaching another gospel and another Jesus. That is why it has waivered in some of its teachings and had  to re-think its original edicts and conform them or "update them" to fit with modern day thinking.

*Truth is:* *God's Truth Never Waivers *and is built upon a solid foundation of faith, not in any organized religion, but Faith in Salvation through Christ Alone and it is offered as a Free Gift of God's Grace unto all people worldwide, Jews and Gentiles - no need for denominational "church membership".

The RCC does not agree with the Holy Bible's teaching of Salvation through Christ alone but *adds* that Salvation is only through the Roman Catholic Church and allegiance to the pope as God's exclusive representative on earth:

B.	*Salvation in the Roman Church Only*. Rome taught that all who did not acknowledge the pope as God’s representative on earth and the Roman Catholic Church as the only true church were damned. Salvation was confined within the teachings of the Roman Church. Every person who disagreed with the Roman Church was in line for a heresy trial and perhaps excommunication. Excommunication meant the loss of one’s soul. 

The Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages

*Matthew 7:*
21: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22: Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23: And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
24: Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26: And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
28: And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
29: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Im_Me said:


> http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html





Im_Me said:


> "The truth is that we really don't know much about God's judgments - and the Church is always hesitant to define what specific people are in heaven or hell since only God can truly judge the heart. That is why the process of canonization of a saint, which declares that the saint is definitely in heaven, is so complex and careful. We do not know what happens to unbaptized babies. We can only speculate because this is not something that God has chosen to reveal to us. However, the Church does officially teach about Purgatory. " Quote from Jeffrey Arrowood, MTS





Im_Me said:


> Another history lesson.  The Church is moving on now.....When will you?





Im_Me said:


> *No!.... I'm not getting back into this un-God-ly mess.
> If you don't think someone (even a large green woman with nasal issues) has better things to do than argue over who is the most Godly...*


I love a woman who sticks to her word...  
Three, just for you sweetheart!


----------



## Im_Me

Starman3000m said:


> The Holy Bible states exactly what God's Judgments are; who is saved and who is not saved.  It's that the RCC is teaching another gospel and another Jesus. That is why it has waivered in some of its teachings and had  to re-think its original edicts and conform them or "update them" to fit with modern day thinking.
> 
> *Truth is:* *God's Truth Never Waivers *and is built upon a solid foundation of faith, not in any organized religion, but Faith in Salvation through Christ Alone and it is offered as a Free Gift of God's Grace unto all people worldwide, Jews and Gentiles - no need for denominational "church membership".
> 
> The RCC does not agree with the Holy Bible's teaching of Salvation through Christ alone but *adds* that Salvation is only through the Roman Catholic Church and allegiance to the pope as God's exclusive representative on earth:
> 
> B.	*Salvation in the Roman Church Only*. Rome taught that all who did not acknowledge the pope as God’s representative on earth and the Roman Catholic Church as the only true church were damned. Salvation was confined within the teachings of the Roman Church. Every person who disagreed with the Roman Church was in line for a heresy trial and perhaps excommunication. Excommunication meant the loss of one’s soul.
> 
> The Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages
> 
> *Matthew 7:*
> 21: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
> 22: Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
> 23: And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
> 24: Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
> 25: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
> 26: And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
> 27: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
> 28: And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
> 29: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.



The Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by our faith in Jesus Christ as our savior and by living that faith through our spiritual communition with God and by striving to act more like Him through shunning sinful acts and atonement.  This is not well said, but hopefully you get the point.  

You are the one that harps on these somewhat archane and specific issues of the Faith.  We are not "saved" or "condemned" by our belief or non-belief in Purgatory or Limbo.  These were always more or less theories put forth by Councils of Bishops- not the Pope directly Ex Cathedra.  Different councils did have different conclusions.

There has further been no definition of specifically what purgatory is.  It is not even necessarily a place; it could be a realization on the point of dying...a single event. I thought I had previously copied and pasted something about this, but couldn't find if quickly tonight.


----------



## Im_Me

ItalianScallion said:


> I love a woman who sticks to her word...
> Three, just for you sweetheart!



Kids were watching Bolt tonight and I got bored.  Sorry I did.  I went through some archives and saw that you guys have been at this since at least August of 2008.  I truely think this must be like Purgatory---if it exists.  Though it really is mostly like Jean Paul Sartre and his "No Exit" depiction of Hell (but now I repeat myself).  

  Here's a smiley just for you.


----------



## Starman3000m

Im_Me said:


> I went through some archives and saw that you guys have been at this since at least August of 2008.



Thank Highlander for bringing this up again.



> I truely think this must be like Purgatory---if it exists...)



Uhm... what do you mean "if it exists" ???? That is what the Roman Catholic teaching states, does it not? You are of the Roman Catholic Faith and not supposed to question the teachings of the Vatican - Correct?


----------



## Im_Me

Starman3000m said:


> Thank Highlander for bringing this up again.
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm... what do you mean "if it exists" ???? That is what the Roman Catholic teaching states, does it not? You are of the Roman Catholic Faith and not supposed to question the teachings of the Vatican - Correct?



Answered in the PURGATORY thread.


----------



## Starman3000m

Im_Me said:


> The Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by our faith in Jesus Christ as our savior and by living that faith through our spiritual communition with God and by striving to act more like Him through shunning sinful acts and atonement.  This is not well said, but hopefully you get the point.
> 
> You are the one that harps on these somewhat archane and specific issues of the Faith.  We are not "saved" or "condemned" by our belief or non-belief in Purgatory or Limbo.  These were always more or less theories put forth by Councils of Bishops- not the Pope directly Ex Cathedra.  Different councils did have different conclusions.
> 
> There has further been no definition of specifically what purgatory is.  It is not even necessarily a place; it could be a realization on the point of dying...a single event. I thought I had previously copied and pasted something about this, but couldn't find if quickly tonight.



Actually, doesn't the Vatican teach that salvation is only for those within the RCC faith and condemnation is for anyone else outside the RCC faith?

And doesn't the Vatican teach that "purgatory" is a "purification process" that a "saved Catholic" who has not attained "sainthood" still must undergo in the "spirit world before he/she can enter into heaven?

That's all??? - The RCC has no further explanation of: 

1.) Who is it that is actually going to punish you in purgatory?

2.) What does your "punishment" actually consist of?

3.) How long will your "punishment phase" last?


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> (article excerpt - bold, mine)
> 
> *The definition of Florence that unbaptized infants are punished in the fire*
> 
> *The Council of Florence (1438-1445) repeated the doctrine of Carthage that infants who die without baptism have the punishment of fire in hell with the devil.* Florence defined that all who die outside of the Church are cast into the fire and that there is no exception whatsoever. This includes unbaptized infants because they are outside of the Church.
> 
> “The Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, nor heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church.”
> 
> It is expressly stated that there are no exceptions and that “none” who die outside of the Church can but go into the fire with the devil. Florence is to be taken at its word for, as was defined at Vatican I, dogmas must be accepted “in the sense once declared” and infants are included in the express universality of the definition.
> 
> Infants Suffer Fire and Limbo is a Pelagian Fable
> 
> *Rome teaches "another Jesus" and "another gospel"*
> 
> For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
> (2 Corinthians 11:4)
> 
> I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: (Galatians 1:6)



Whether you choose to believe it or not, until about the time of this document there was no other Christian faith! [heretics aside].  All the proof I need of this fact is tha_t none of you has provided a single writing of BAC theologians_ who surely would have been teaching against this all powerful Catholic Church.
With that in mind, Catholicism was the only Christianity until the 14th century and this document is a response to those who had left the True Faith [which teaches baptism;_ it is necessary because it was commanded_, not because man made it up]
Just as you try to shake people from what-you-call error with quotes about the narrow gates and all, the church was doing no less as people left the church Jesus Christ established for the wide road of the "once saved, always saved" heresy.
Understand that the people of the day knowingly and willingly rejected Jesus Christ for a false teacher that made a false promise, which does put them on very precarious salvific ground.  However, 600 years later we have BAC's that have not knowingly and willingly left the True church which does not make a person as culpable for their error.  Insert  your own theology into what I've said before you jump all over me.  If someone knowingly and willlingly rejects the Jesus you preach are they on more dangerous ground than someone who has been raised in some other way, believing Christianity is an error?
The teaching is different today because the degree of culpability is different.  Now can you be reasonable and accept that, or are you going to insist on assuming the worst?


----------



## baydoll

Wow is this thread still going on? 

Sorry to Libby and R, but I have been swamped at work and in my personal life and haven't been able to respond. I am HOPING to get back on here soon to answer your posts to me....sorry for this and thank you for being so patient!!


----------



## libby

PsyOps said:


> It seems I hit a nerve and I'm sorry.  I'm really not trying to corner you.  I'm trying to get a better understanding of the Catholic Church.  During that process I aim to debate you some things.  You seem very knowledgeable about the RCC so it makes sense to me to ask you engage on these questions.  It's not my intent to corner you.



I don't think you are trying to corner me...exactly.  It's more that everyone here seems to think that the RCC claims to know every single thing about the mind of God.  That is NOT, NOT, NOT what infallibility is.  Not everything that comes out of the pope's mouth is right; sometimes he's just batting around theological ideas, sometimes he's expressing his own opinion, which can be dead wrong, as happened in the Middle Ages.  This is where we are NOT supposed to be blind followers, we are responsible for ourselves, too.   
The topic at hand [geeesh, as I sit here I don't know if we're talking about baptism or purgatory on this thread] is a matter of doctrine, although not every aspect of the doctrines does the church claim to understand.
The Bible tells us that God cannot look upon anything evil [Habakkuk], and Rev tells us nothing unclean shall enter Heaven.  What most BAC's that I know call sanctification is synonymous with the process the Bible says must be _completed_ before enjoying the Beatific Vision.  Whether it is a "place" or a "state of being" has never been defined, just speculated on.  It could happen instantaneously, but the doctrine of purgatory only says that _it must happen_.  We must "pay the last penny".


----------



## libby

baydoll said:


> Wow is this thread still going on?
> 
> Sorry to Libby and R, but I have been swamped at work and in my personal life and haven't been able to respond. I am HOPING to get back on here soon to answer your posts to me....sorry for this and thank you for being so patient!!



Now those words are "fruits of the Spirit"


----------



## baydoll

Thanks! : )


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Whether you choose to believe it or not, until about the time of this document there was no other Christian faith! [heretics aside]....The teaching is different today because the degree of culpability is different.  Now can you be reasonable and accept that, or are you going to insist on assuming the worst?



Ever thought that this may be because the RCC persecuted and slaughtered anyone who did not convert to the teachings of Rome? I  do not have to make any assumption for the worst, libby, the RCC has done a good enough job of bringing it upon themselves through heretical teachings and doctrines that need updating to conform with "majority thinking" in order to retain followers. That is the Hard Truth that the RCC and its leadership will answer for on Judgment Day. Even today, the RCC is continually being exposed for the clergy that has misused their authority over parishioners and all the cover-ups that have been going on is also being exposed.


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> Ever thought that this may be because the RCC persecuted and slaughtered anyone who did not convert to the teachings of Rome? I  do not have to make any assumption for the worst, libby, the RCC has done a good enough job of bringing it upon themselves through heretical teachings and doctrines that need updating to conform with "majority thinking" in order to retain followers. That is the Hard Truth that the RCC and its leadership will answer for on Judgment Day. Even today, the RCC is continually being exposed for the clergy that has misused their authority over parishioners and all the cover-ups that have been going on is also being exposed.



Eh, yeah.  Let's compare this to all of the good done over the 2000 years of church history.  In any group of any kind you are going to have your rotten apples, (think Judas).  It has no bearing on the doctrine.  

And as for "majority thinking", you have got to be kidding!  The Catholic Church has been vilified for not conforming it's doctrines, such as abortion, gay rights, artificial birth control and women in the clergy.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Eh, yeah.  Let's compare this to all of the good done over the 2000 years of church history.  In any group of any kind you are going to have your rotten apples, (think Judas).  It has no bearing on the doctrine.
> 
> And as for "majority thinking", you have got to be kidding!  The Catholic Church has been vilified for not conforming it's doctrines, such as abortion, gay rights, artificial birth control and women in the clergy.



Um - I guess I should have made it a bit more clearer on the "majority thinking" applying to RCC and Protestant theology. The entire Evangelical Christian thinking has also been 'villified" on its Biblical stand regarding the moral issue you presented - it's not the RCC only.

The "majority thinking" I was referring to pertained to the initial RCC teachings about:

1.) pope infallibilty.

2.) Salvation of infants who died before being baptized

3.) Salvation of souls outside the RCC faith

4.) Description of "purgatory" how & when  it takes place,

5.) Sale of indulgences 

These are just a few of the RCC tenets that have been revised to respond and conform to the challenges that sincere Bible studying parishioners and Protestant/Evangelical theologians have questioned the Vatican about in the past. After further review, the Vatican makes adjustments.

It appears that the Vatican and RCC doctrine is not really built on a solid foundation based on the basic and truthful teachings of the Holy Bible if it has to make adjustments to divert from previous erroneous teachings and actions. The most important heresy is the teaching that the RCC has been given "apostolic succession" and exclusivity to be God's True and Only Church on earth with the pope being God's true representative of earth. The Vatican is no different than any other man-made organized religion that has taken Bible teaching out of context to "justify" its position as being the absolute true faith and only church that Salvation can be obtained through.


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> Um - I guess I should have made it a bit more clearer on the "majority thinking" applying to RCC and Protestant theology. The entire Evangelical Christian thinking has also been 'villified" on its Biblical stand regarding the moral issue you presented - it's not the RCC only.
> 
> The "majority thinking" I was referring to pertained to the initial RCC teachings about:
> 
> 1.) pope infallibilty.
> 
> 2.) Salvation of infants who died before being baptized
> 
> 3.) Salvation of souls outside the RCC faith
> 
> 4.) Description of "purgatory" how & when  it takes place,
> 
> 5.) Sale of indulgences
> 
> These are just a few of the RCC tenets that have been revised to respond and conform to the challenges that sincere Bible studying parishioners and Protestant/Evangelical theologians have questioned the Vatican about in the past. After further review, the Vatican makes adjustments.
> 
> It appears that the Vatican and RCC doctrine is not really built on a solid foundation based on the basic and truthful teachings of the Holy Bible if it has to make adjustments to divert from previous erroneous teachings and actions. The most important heresy is the teaching that the RCC has been given "apostolic succession" and exclusivity to be God's True and Only Church on earth with the pope being God's true representative of earth. The Vatican is no different than any other man-made organized religion that has taken Bible teaching out of context to "justify" its position as being the absolute true faith and only church that Salvation can be obtained through.



I disagree.  Interpretation of almost any document of the church (and I think you would agree with this regarding letters in the Bible) has to read in light of the presupposition that the author is making.  The Epistle to the Hebrews addressed different issues than the letters to the Romans.  It didn't change Truth, but some things need to be explained to greater or lesser degrees depending on the audience.

1) Already addressed earlier in the thread

2)already addressed

3) degrees of culpability are different for those from the 14th century to men of today.

4)has not changed

5)not a doctrine


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> I disagree.  Interpretation of almost any document of the church (and I think you would agree with this regarding letters in the Bible) has to read in light of the presupposition that the author is making.  The Epistle to the Hebrews addressed different issues than the letters to the Romans.  It didn't change Truth, but some things need to be explained to greater or lesser degrees depending on the audience.



Agree Totally - except the RCC reads things into scripture and re-interprets them to justify its doctrinal teachings. Truth was then mixed with flawed interpretations based on consensus of those doing the interpreting. 

For one: The Vatican continues to make the claim that it is the only true church on earth established through Peter and that papal authority must be accepted by all humans on earth. That is not scriptural. God's Plan of Salvation is available to all mankind, whether Jew or Gentile and is not exclusive to man-made organized religion. The True Church is the Spiritual Body of Believers in Christ's Atonement throughout the world and "church membership" is not required as taught by the RCC. One becomes a member of the Spiritual Body of Christ and heirs to the Kingdom of God by being Born Again in the manner that the New Testament Jesus has proclaimed.



> 1) Already addressed earlier in the thread
> 
> 2)already addressed
> 
> 3) degrees of culpability are different for those from the 14th century to men of today.
> 
> 4)has not changed
> 
> 5)not a doctrine



And so we agree that the Vatican has made several theological errors that, when they were implemented, affected the lives of all parishioners who submitted to the misguided papal authority of their era.

I rest my case.


----------



## PsyOps

libby said:


> I don't think you are trying to corner me...exactly.  It's more that everyone here seems to think that the RCC claims to know every single thing about the mind of God.  That is NOT, NOT, NOT what infallibility is.  Not everything that comes out of the pope's mouth is right; sometimes he's just batting around theological ideas, sometimes he's expressing his own opinion, which can be dead wrong, as happened in the Middle Ages.  This is where we are NOT supposed to be blind followers, we are responsible for ourselves, too.
> The topic at hand [geeesh, as I sit here I don't know if we're talking about baptism or purgatory on this thread] is a matter of doctrine, although not every aspect of the doctrines does the church claim to understand.
> The Bible tells us that God cannot look upon anything evil [Habakkuk], and Rev tells us nothing unclean shall enter Heaven.  What most BAC's that I know call sanctification is synonymous with the process the Bible says must be _completed_ before enjoying the Beatific Vision.  Whether it is a "place" or a "state of being" has never been defined, just speculated on.  It could happen instantaneously, but the doctrine of purgatory only says that _it must happen_.  We must "pay the last penny".



Yeah, you have me confused with someone else.  I’m not discussing purgatory at this point.  Just infant baptism.


----------



## PsyOps

Starman3000m said:


> Ever thought that this may be because the RCC persecuted and slaughtered anyone who did not convert to the teachings of Rome? I  do not have to make any assumption for the worst, libby, the RCC has done a good enough job of bringing it upon themselves through heretical teachings and doctrines that need updating to conform with "majority thinking" in order to retain followers. That is the Hard Truth that the RCC and its leadership will answer for on Judgment Day. Even today, the RCC is continually being exposed for the clergy that has misused their authority over parishioners and all the cover-ups that have been going on is also being exposed.



With all due respect Star, I think that was a cheap shot.  Certainly you don’t hold the same rationale to today’s RCC of what happened hundreds of years ago?  Despite the shortcomings of all our Christian denominations, they all have brought people to Christ in each person’s individual earnestness.  Do you really believe that a person within the Catholic church wont obtain salvation because of certain teachings of the church or what they did hundreds of years ago?


----------



## ItalianScallion

libby said:


> Whether you choose to believe it or not, until about the time of this document there was no other Christian faith! [heretics aside].  All the proof I need of this fact is tha_t none of you has provided a single writing of BAC theologians_ who surely would have been teaching against this all powerful Catholic Church.


We have done this Libby; You all won't accept it.
There never was any other Christian faith. Adam and Eve believed in the only true God and there was nothing before them.
God & Jesus spoke against "this all powerful Catholic Church". 
The Bible also does.
When you've got these, you need nothing else. Jesus spoke of 2-3 witnesses remember? "The Spirit, water and the Blood" 1 John 5 v 7, 8. There is no more that can be added that carries more testimonial weight.


----------



## libby

> Ever thought that this may be because the RCC persecuted and slaughtered anyone who did not convert to the teachings of Rome? I do not have to make any assumption for the worst, libby, the RCC has done a good enough job of bringing it upon themselves through heretical teachings and doctrines that need updating to conform with "majority thinking" in order to retain followers. That is the Hard Truth that the RCC and its leadership will answer for on Judgment Day. Even today, the RCC is continually being exposed for the clergy that has misused their authority over parishioners and all the cover-ups that have been going on is also being exposed


.

Y'know what just occurred to me, Starman? * Where were all of the true Christians, the BAC's during the slaughter *being perpetrated by the Catholic Church?  Where are the records of leaders of your own faith condemning what was happening?  All that needs to happen for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing (paraphrase).
Just as you condemn Pius XII for silence during Nazi persecutions, *so you must also hang yourself *and your BAC bretheren during the Inquisitions.(hmmm..as well as during WWII, I don't know that I've ever heard of BAC's standing up against Hitler, either)  You are equally, if not more guilty than the Catholics because Catholics never had God's saving grace in the first place.
Invisible church, my foot.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> .
> 
> Y'know what just occurred to me, Starman? * Where were all of the true Christians, the BAC's during the slaughter *being perpetrated by the Catholic Church?  Where are the records of leaders of your own faith condemning what was happening?  All that needs to happen for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing (paraphrase).
> Just as you condemn Pius XII for silence during Nazi persecutions, *so you must also hang yourself *and your BAC bretheren during the Inquisitions.(hmmm..as well as during WWII, I don't know that I've ever heard of BAC's standing up against Hitler, either)  You are equally, if not more guilty than the Catholics because Catholics never had God's saving grace in the first Invisible church, my foot.



libby, you missed the point or perhaps you are not completely aware of the scope of the history regarding the Vatican-led Inquisitions.

You ask where all the true Christians and the BACs were "during the slaughter" well, I will tell you libby: They were being slaughtered!

That's exactly right! Jews (including Orthodox and Messianics) Protestants, Evangelicals, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, etc were all the target of Rome's Inquisitions if they did not capitulate to papal authority and convert to Roman Catholicism. Here - read all about it:

With all due respect to historic and theological accuracy, it needs to be pointed out that the "crusades" were waged by the ideology of Roman Catholicism; not the Christianity that Jesus taught. This is a very common misunderstanding since the Vatican falsely claims that Roman Catholicism is "Christian." If this were the case, why were Protestants and Evangelical Christians persecuted and slaughtered right along with Jews and Muslims during the period of the crusades? Perhaps the following info will help clarify this a bit more:


The "Crusades" were instigated by the Roman Catholic Church which sought to get out from under the rule of Islam. The Vatican blessed the Crusades as the method for Roman Catholicism to regain the power they had been enjoying for many years. Roman Catholicism IS NOT Christianity in the true sense. Muslims and Jews were not the only ones slaughtered during the crusades - so were Protestant and Evangelical Christians along with people from all other religions that would not submit to the Vatican.

Please DO NOT CONFUSE TRUE CHRISTIANITY WITH ROMAN CATHOLICISM.  Please check historical facts on this one.

*History of Crusades*
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/118/52.0.html

“The Spanish Inquisition was used for both political and religious reasons. Spain is a nation-state that was born out of religious struggle between numerous different belief systems including Catholicism, Islam, Protestantism and Judaism. Following the Crusades and the Reconquest of Spain by the Christian Spaniards the leaders of Spain needed a way to unify the country into a strong nation. Ferdinand and Isabella chose Catholicism to unite Spain and in 1478 asked permission of the pope to begin the Spanish Inquisition to purify the people of Spain. They began by driving out Jews, Protestants and other non-believers.”

“Around the 1540s the Spanish Inquisition turned its fire on the Protestants in Spain in an attempt to further unify the nation. The Spanish Inquisition's reign of terror was finally suppressed in 1834.”
Source: North Park University - Christian, Urban, Multicultural - Page Not Found

and;

“The Spanish Inquisition was executed at the request of Isabella. She was a very pious and devout Catholic. One of her advisors, who would later become the first General Inquisitor, was Thomas de Torquemada. A rumor exists that while advising the queen in her youth, Thomas had her take a vow that should she ever reach the throne, she would devote herself to the termination of heresy and the persecution of the Jews (Roth, 1964), which at the time seemed unlikely. Now, however, she was in a position to do what she had vowed to do. Besides, the queen had already said she wanted "one country, one ruler, one faith" (N. Dirksen and M. Johnson, The Spanish Inquisition's Effect on the Church, 1996).

The Catholic sovereigns were determined to have a united country, and they did not believe this ambition could be achieved unless all their subjects accepted one religion. This they were determined to bring about through persuasion, if possible, and if not, by force. Spain under Isabella and Ferdinand was ripe for the Inquisition; that was why the cruel institution was embraced so heartily and continued to survive until the nineteenth century.”(J. Plaidy, The Spanish Inquisition, 1967, p.86).

Source: http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/64.htm

Note: The Internet sources are outdated and off line, I had obtained these several years ago during research I was involved in.


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> libby, you missed the point or perhaps you are not completely aware of the scope of the history regarding the Vatican-led Inquisitions.
> 
> You ask where all the true Christians and the BACs were "during the slaughter" well, I will tell you libby: They were being slaughtered!
> 
> That's exactly right! Jews (including Orthodox and Messianics) Protestants, Evangelicals, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, etc were all the target of Rome's Inquisitions if they did not capitulate to papal authority and convert to Roman Catholicism. Here - read all about it:
> 
> With all due respect to historic and theological accuracy, it needs to be pointed out that the "crusades" were waged by the ideology of Roman Catholicism; not the Christianity that Jesus taught. This is a very common misunderstanding since the Vatican falsely claims that Roman Catholicism is "Christian." If this were the case, why were Protestants and Evangelical Christians persecuted and slaughtered right along with Jews and Muslims during the period of the crusades? Perhaps the following info will help clarify this a bit more:
> 
> 
> The "Crusades" were instigated by the Roman Catholic Church which sought to get out from under the rule of Islam. The Vatican blessed the Crusades as the method for Roman Catholicism to regain the power they had been enjoying for many years. Roman Catholicism IS NOT Christianity in the true sense. Muslims and Jews were not the only ones slaughtered during the crusades - so were Protestant and Evangelical Christians along with people from all other religions that would not submit to the Vatican.
> 
> Please DO NOT CONFUSE TRUE CHRISTIANITY WITH ROMAN CATHOLICISM.  Please check historical facts on this one.
> 
> *History of Crusades*
> http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/118/52.0.html
> 
> “The Spanish Inquisition was used for both political and religious reasons. Spain is a nation-state that was born out of religious struggle between numerous different belief systems including Catholicism, Islam, Protestantism and Judaism. Following the Crusades and the Reconquest of Spain by the Christian Spaniards the leaders of Spain needed a way to unify the country into a strong nation. Ferdinand and Isabella chose Catholicism to unite Spain and in 1478 asked permission of the pope to begin the Spanish Inquisition to purify the people of Spain. They began by driving out Jews, Protestants and other non-believers.”
> 
> “Around the 1540s the Spanish Inquisition turned its fire on the Protestants in Spain in an attempt to further unify the nation. The Spanish Inquisition's reign of terror was finally suppressed in 1834.”
> Source: North Park University - Christian, Urban, Multicultural - Page Not Found
> 
> and;
> 
> “The Spanish Inquisition was executed at the request of Isabella. She was a very pious and devout Catholic. One of her advisors, who would later become the first General Inquisitor, was Thomas de Torquemada. A rumor exists that while advising the queen in her youth, Thomas had her take a vow that should she ever reach the throne, she would devote herself to the termination of heresy and the persecution of the Jews (Roth, 1964), which at the time seemed unlikely. Now, however, she was in a position to do what she had vowed to do. Besides, the queen had already said she wanted "one country, one ruler, one faith" (N. Dirksen and M. Johnson, The Spanish Inquisition's Effect on the Church, 1996).
> 
> The Catholic sovereigns were determined to have a united country, and they did not believe this ambition could be achieved unless all their subjects accepted one religion. This they were determined to bring about through persuasion, if possible, and if not, by force. Spain under Isabella and Ferdinand was ripe for the Inquisition; that was why the cruel institution was embraced so heartily and continued to survive until the nineteenth century.”(J. Plaidy, The Spanish Inquisition, 1967, p.86).
> 
> Source: http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/64.htm
> 
> Note: The Internet sources are outdated and off line, I had obtained these several years ago during research I was involved in.



Naturally.  We got all of 'em, too, apparently, which is why you cannot provide any documentation.
What of WWII?  Where are the resounding condemnations from your leaders/pastors etc. condemning the Holocaust?
Hmmm...seems to me one or more branches of Bible only Christians were responsible for the witch trials!  Lemme guess, not your bretheren!!  They mis-interpreted the Bible.
There ya' have it again.  The invisible church.


----------



## Starman3000m

PsyOps said:


> With all due respect Star, I think that was a cheap shot.  Certainly you don’t hold the same rationale to today’s RCC of what happened hundreds of years ago?



I am not the one who has set the standards for those involved in the leadership of the Christian Faith in the New Testament Jesus. The Holy Bible is the measure by which leaders are held in regard to exemplifying the highest of standards in representing Jesus. You pose the question about the rationale comparing the present status of the RCC to what happened hundreds of years ago. I then ask you, PsyOps to determine how you feel about the widespread accounts of clergy abuse against women and children by the priests of todays RCC. Is there a different standard for this? Is that a lesser evil in your opinion and therefore let's give the RCC a pass? Sorry, PsyOps but I disagree with your saying I am taking a "cheap shot" here. I presented the truth. Where is it ever wrong to do that?



> Despite the shortcomings of all our Christian denominations, they all have brought people to Christ in each person’s individual earnestness.  Do you really believe that a person within the Catholic church wont obtain salvation because of certain teachings of the church or what they did hundreds of years ago?



It is not what I believe, PsyOps, it is what the Holy Bible states in comparison to any theology that teaches something different. If Catholics are led to pray to "mediators" apart from the New Testament Jesus and are fine with calling the pope "Holy Father," a title reserved only for the True God, then I would begin to wonder if they are actually trusting in the RCC for salvation instead of the Real New Testament Jesus. Only God knows where their allegiance is and whether they are among those that Jesus spoke of:

*Matthew 7:*
20: Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22: Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23: And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> libby, you missed the point or perhaps you are not completely aware of the scope of the history regarding the Vatican-led Inquisitions.
> 
> You ask where all the true Christians and the BACs were "during the slaughter" well, I will tell you libby: They were being slaughtered!
> 
> That's exactly right! Jews (including Orthodox and Messianics) Protestants, Evangelicals, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, etc were all the target of Rome's Inquisitions if they did not capitulate to papal authority and convert to Roman Catholicism. Here - read all about it:
> 
> With all due respect to historic and theological accuracy, it needs to be pointed out that the "crusades" were waged by the ideology of Roman Catholicism; not the Christianity that Jesus taught. This is a very common misunderstanding since the Vatican falsely claims that Roman Catholicism is "Christian." If this were the case, why were Protestants and Evangelical Christians persecuted and slaughtered right along with Jews and Muslims during the period of the crusades? Perhaps the following info will help clarify this a bit more:
> 
> 
> The "Crusades" were instigated by the Roman Catholic Church which sought to get out from under the rule of Islam. The Vatican blessed the Crusades as the method for Roman Catholicism to regain the power they had been enjoying for many years. Roman Catholicism IS NOT Christianity in the true sense. Muslims and Jews were not the only ones slaughtered during the crusades - so were Protestant and Evangelical Christians along with people from all other religions that would not submit to the Vatican.
> 
> Please DO NOT CONFUSE TRUE CHRISTIANITY WITH ROMAN CATHOLICISM.  Please check historical facts on this one.
> 
> *History of Crusades*
> http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/118/52.0.html
> 
> “The Spanish Inquisition was used for both political and religious reasons. Spain is a nation-state that was born out of religious struggle between numerous different belief systems including Catholicism, Islam, Protestantism and Judaism. Following the Crusades and the Reconquest of Spain by the Christian Spaniards the leaders of Spain needed a way to unify the country into a strong nation. Ferdinand and Isabella chose Catholicism to unite Spain and in 1478 asked permission of the pope to begin the Spanish Inquisition to purify the people of Spain. They began by driving out Jews, Protestants and other non-believers.”
> 
> “Around the 1540s the Spanish Inquisition turned its fire on the Protestants in Spain in an attempt to further unify the nation. The Spanish Inquisition's reign of terror was finally suppressed in 1834.”
> Source: North Park University - Christian, Urban, Multicultural - Page Not Found
> 
> and;
> 
> “The Spanish Inquisition was executed at the request of Isabella. She was a very pious and devout Catholic. One of her advisors, who would later become the first General Inquisitor, was Thomas de Torquemada. A rumor exists that while advising the queen in her youth, Thomas had her take a vow that should she ever reach the throne, she would devote herself to the termination of heresy and the persecution of the Jews (Roth, 1964), which at the time seemed unlikely. Now, however, she was in a position to do what she had vowed to do. Besides, the queen had already said she wanted "one country, one ruler, one faith" (N. Dirksen and M. Johnson, The Spanish Inquisition's Effect on the Church, 1996).
> 
> The Catholic sovereigns were determined to have a united country, and they did not believe this ambition could be achieved unless all their subjects accepted one religion. This they were determined to bring about through persuasion, if possible, and if not, by force. Spain under Isabella and Ferdinand was ripe for the Inquisition; that was why the cruel institution was embraced so heartily and continued to survive until the nineteenth century.”(J. Plaidy, The Spanish Inquisition, 1967, p.86).
> 
> Source: http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/64.htm
> 
> Note: The Internet sources are outdated and off line, I had obtained these several years ago during research I was involved in.



But the BIBLE says...
Deuteronomy 17:2–5 God said: "If there is found among you, within any of your towns which the Lord your God gives you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it; then you shall inquire diligently [note that phrase: "inquire diligently"], and if it is true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring forth to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones." 
It is clear that there were some Israelites who posed as believers in and keepers of the covenant with Yahweh, while inwardly they did not believe and secretly practiced false religions, and even tried to spread them (cf. Deut. 13:6–11). To protect the kingdom from such hidden heresy, these secret practitioners of false religions had to be rooted out and expelled from the community. This directive from the Lord applied even to whole cities that turned away from the true religion (Deut. 13:12–18). Like Israel, medieval Europe was a society of Christian kingdoms that were formally consecrated to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is therefore quite understandable that these Catholics would read their Bibles and conclude that for the good of their Christian society they, like the Israelites before them, "must purge the evil from the midst of you" (Deut. 13:5, 17:7, 12). Paul repeats this principle in 1 Corinthians 5:13. 

These same texts were interpreted similarly by the first Protestants, who also tried to root out and punish those they regarded as heretics. Luther and Calvin both endorsed the right of the state to protect society by purging false religion. In fact, Calvin not only banished from Geneva those who did not share his views, he permitted and in some cases ordered others to be executed for "heresy" (e.g. Jacques Gouet, tortured and beheaded in 1547; and Michael Servetus, burned at the stake in 1553). In England and Ireland, Reformers engaged in their own ruthless inquisitions and executions. Conservative estimates indicate that thousands of English and Irish Catholics were put to death—many by being hanged, drawn, and quartered—for practicing the Catholic faith and refusing to become Protestant. An even greater number were forced to flee to the Continent for their safety. We point this out to show that the situation was a two-way street; and both sides easily understood the Bible to require the use of penal sanctions to root out false religion from Christian society. 

The fact that the Protestant Reformers also created inquisitions to root out Catholics and others who did not fall into line with the doctrines of the local Protestant sect shows that the existence of an inquisition does not prove that a movement is not of God. Protestants cannot make this claim against Catholics without having it backfire on themselves.* Neither can Catholics make such a charge against Protestants. The truth of a particular system of belief must be decided on other grounds. *
The Inquisition

It's interesting to note that the author of this article is more interested in the truth than in slamming those who disagree.  Fruits of the Spirit, perhaps?


----------



## libby

> determine how you feel about the widespread accounts of clergy abuse against women and children



Lemme guess, AGAIN!  You've missed the two times I've posted stats on abuse by Protestants (which include Bible Christians)

FOXNews.com - Sexual Abuse of Minors in Protestant Churches - FOX Fan

Tallying Sexual Abuse by Protestant Clergy - New York Times

Abuse data in Protestant churches

Hypocrite.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> But the BIBLE says...
> Deuteronomy 17:2–5 God said: "If there is found among you, within any of your towns which the Lord your God gives you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it; then you shall inquire diligently [note that phrase: "inquire diligently"], and if it is true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring forth to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones."
> It is clear that there were some Israelites who posed as believers in and keepers of the covenant with Yahweh, while inwardly they did not believe and secretly practiced false religions, and even tried to spread them (cf. Deut. 13:6–11). To protect the kingdom from such hidden heresy, these secret practitioners of false religions had to be rooted out and expelled from the community. This directive from the Lord applied even to whole cities that turned away from the true religion (Deut. 13:12–18). Like Israel, medieval Europe was a society of Christian kingdoms that were formally consecrated to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is therefore quite understandable that these Catholics would read their Bibles and conclude that for the good of their Christian society they, like the Israelites before them, "must purge the evil from the midst of you" (Deut. 13:5, 17:7, 12). Paul repeats this principle in 1 Corinthians 5:13.
> 
> These same texts were interpreted similarly by the first Protestants, who also tried to root out and punish those they regarded as heretics. Luther and Calvin both endorsed the right of the state to protect society by purging false religion. In fact, Calvin not only banished from Geneva those who did not share his views, he permitted and in some cases ordered others to be executed for "heresy" (e.g. Jacques Gouet, tortured and beheaded in 1547; and Michael Servetus, burned at the stake in 1553). In England and Ireland, Reformers engaged in their own ruthless inquisitions and executions. Conservative estimates indicate that thousands of English and Irish Catholics were put to death—many by being hanged, drawn, and quartered—for practicing the Catholic faith and refusing to become Protestant. An even greater number were forced to flee to the Continent for their safety. We point this out to show that the situation was a two-way street; and both sides easily understood the Bible to require the use of penal sanctions to root out false religion from Christian society.
> 
> The fact that the Protestant Reformers also created inquisitions to root out Catholics and others who did not fall into line with the doctrines of the local Protestant sect shows that the existence of an inquisition does not prove that a movement is not of God. Protestants cannot make this claim against Catholics without having it backfire on themselves.* Neither can Catholics make such a charge against Protestants. The truth of a particular system of belief must be decided on other grounds. *
> The Inquisition
> 
> It's interesting to note that the author of this article is more interested in the truth than in slamming those who disagree.  Fruits of the Spirit, perhaps?



I can almost agree with the Catholic writer where it states _"The truth of a particular system of belief must be decided on other grounds."_ 

*The wording should read: *
The Truth of a particular system of theological belief must be decided on the Truth of God as revealed through the Holy Scriptures and by The Holy Spirit of God - not man.

*But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. *(1 John 2:27)


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> I can almost agree with the Catholic writer where it states _"The truth of a particular system of belief must be decided on other grounds."_
> 
> *The wording should read: *
> The Truth of a particular system of theological belief must be decided on the Truth of God as revealed through the Holy Scriptures and by The Holy Spirit of God - not man.
> 
> *But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. *(1 John 2:27)



When you get caught with your pants down you bail.  You think wrongs, abuses, and sinners are found only within the Catholic Church, particularly our heirarchy.  Presented with evidence that sin is a human condition, not exclusive to any denomination or non-denomination, as you like to fancy yourself, you move on to another subject.  Just like the proverbial jello to a wall; I guess that's one of the benefits of belonging to that invisible church of yours.


----------



## PsyOps

Starman3000m said:


> I am not the one who has set the standards for those involved in the leadership of the Christian Faith in the New Testament Jesus. The Holy Bible is the measure by which leaders are held in regard to exemplifying the highest of standards in representing Jesus. You pose the question about the rationale comparing the present status of the RCC to what happened hundreds of years ago. I then ask you, PsyOps to determine how you feel about the widespread accounts of clergy abuse against women and children by the priests of todays RCC. Is there a different standard for this? Is that a lesser evil in your opinion and therefore let's give the RCC a pass? Sorry, PsyOps but I disagree with your saying I am taking a "cheap shot" here. I presented the truth. Where is it ever wrong to do that?



I don’t see what some Priests have done any different than a Jim Bakker, Mike Warnke, Frank Houston, Douglas Goodman, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, Oral and Richard Roberts…  The list of abusers in Protestant churches is long and just as pathetic.  But I don’t hold the followers of those churches in any criticism for things they had no control over.  One can stand in condemnation of certain leaders of a church while still believing in the fundamental core philosophies of that church.

I think where we are going to come off in disagreement about this is I am not beholden to any church’s ideology.  I am done with churches.  I have had too many bad experiences to trust any of them.  I wont go into detail about that now, but I also respect yours, Libby’s and anyone else’s choice of church.  It’s their choice and their salvation.  I will debate what I believe is right or wrong in certain churches but wont try to place judgment on the individual in terms of their salvation.

Here’s the deal, you are far more knowledgeable than I am.  So I respect your biblical opinions.  But sometimes your language is a little on the aggressive side.  I know you aren’t looking for acceptance and that’s fine.  But I think bringing up ancient fallout of a church is pointless to the debate.  It looks like you are just trying to score points rather than just make your point.


----------



## hotcoffee

libby said:


> When you get caught with your pants down you bail.  You think wrongs, abuses, and sinners are found only within the Catholic Church, particularly our heirarchy.  Presented with evidence that sin is a human condition, not exclusive to any denomination or non-denomination, as you like to fancy yourself, you move on to another subject.  Just like the proverbial jello to a wall; I guess that's one of the benefits of belonging to that invisible church of yours.



I'm not going anywhere Libby... Starman is right... the RCC is one of the most corrupt establishments in history... I'd even go so far as to say there are lots of lost soles as a result of the RCC

Do you know what it's like to know a friend of yours committed suicide because his priest told him that he was going to burn in hell?  I do...  I bet you can guess why the priest told him that too.... he couldn't tell his mother about the "special classes" he took...


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> When you get caught with your pants down you bail.  You think wrongs, abuses, and sinners are found only within the Catholic Church, particularly our heirarchy.  Presented with evidence that sin is a human condition, not exclusive to any denomination or non-denomination, as you like to fancy yourself, you move on to another subject.  Just like the proverbial jello to a wall; I guess that's one of the benefits of belonging to that invisible church of yours.



Excuse me! C'mon libby, nowhere have I ever condoned or given a waiver of such actions when they are perpetrated by leaders of Protestant denominations. They are as guilty as any clergy of the RCC and should be held to the higher standards that God requires of the leaders of His Church.

Yes, they are wrong and should be penalized and prosecuted for their actions and rooted out of the churches that they are in charge of.

The only difference here, my dear libby, is that I am not a church member of any of those denominational churches that you presented. If I had been a member of any church whose pastor was knowingly abusing and/or defrauding the congregants I would be the first to initiate action required to rectify the problem in the church  leadership. That is why I once asked if you would be willing to initiate a petition to the Vatican that would express your desire to rid the RCC of all predator priests and abusive nuns that remain to this day in the RCC. I believe you replied that you would not be willing to take that action. So, therein is the problem - parishioners seem unwilling to stand up to the church authority. Why?


----------



## PsyOps

Starman3000m said:


> It is not what I believe, PsyOps, it is what the Holy Bible states in comparison to any theology that teaches something different. If Catholics are led to pray to "mediators" apart from the New Testament Jesus and are fine with calling the pope "Holy Father," a title reserved only for the True God, then I would begin to wonder if they are actually trusting in the RCC for salvation instead of the Real New Testament Jesus. Only God knows where their allegiance is and whether they are among those that Jesus spoke of:
> 
> *Matthew 7:*
> 20: Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
> 21: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
> 22: Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
> 23: And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.



I have issue with all of these things.  I believe I have stated my disagreement with mediators and calling the Pope “Holy Father” or priests “Father” and infant baptism, etc…  I also have problems with faith healing, speaking in tongues, handling snakes and other “supernatural gifts”.  Then there are the Jim Jones’ and the David Koresh’s.  The Christian churches are plagued with all sorts of horrible seeds and histories that makes it hard to know who has the real truth anymore.  I have decided to step outside of all of that and just get down to the bible.  Plain and simple.


----------



## Starman3000m

hotcoffee said:


> I'm not going anywhere Libby... Starman is right... the RCC is one of the most corrupt establishments in history... I'd even go so far as to say there are lots of lost soles as a result of the RCC
> 
> Do you know what it's like to know a friend of yours committed suicide because his priest told him that he was going to burn in hell?  I do...  I bet you can guess why the priest told him that too.... he couldn't tell his mother about the "special classes" he took...



I feel deep sympathy in your experience, hotcoffee, because I too had a friend commit suicide over a priest condemning him to hell during a confession because he got involved with a certain female. Before the unfortunate ordeal, he called and asked that I meet him at a nearby restaurant to talk about God. When I saw him waiting he had a look of terror on his face, and began crying right there and asked if he was really going to hell. I counseled him with God's Promises of Mercy and Forgiveness through Jesus and that restoration with God was something he could place faith in. We prayed there at the table and he seemed to be a bit less shaken than before.  I later and very sadly learned that his fate ended tragically over the distraught anguish of the priest proclaiming damnation over him. I'll never forget the look of horror on Tom's face that morning when he asked me if he was going to go to hell.


----------



## Starman3000m

PsyOps said:


> I have issue with all of these things.  I believe I have stated my disagreement with mediators and calling the Pope “Holy Father” or priests “Father” and infant baptism, etc…  I also have problems with faith healing, speaking in tongues, handling snakes and other “supernatural gifts”.  Then there are the Jim Jones’ and the David Koresh’s.  The Christian churches are plagued with all sorts of horrible seeds and histories that makes it hard to know who has the real truth anymore.  I have decided to step outside of all of that and just get down to the bible.  Plain and simple.



Yes, PsyOps, I believe that you are truly a good guy and are sincere in seeking the true path and relationship with God. I sense your trust in Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour as well. We may have some minor differences that I believe ItalianScallion calls "secondary issues" but where Salvation through Christ is not affected. Keep trusting only in God and stay prayerfully in His Word . God will never let you down - man will.


----------



## PsyOps

hotcoffee said:


> I'm not going anywhere Libby... Starman is right... the RCC is one of the most corrupt establishments in history... I'd even go so far as to say there are lots of lost soles as a result of the RCC
> 
> Do you know what it's like to know a friend of yours committed suicide because his priest told him that he was going to burn in hell?  I do...  I bet you can guess why the priest told him that too.... he couldn't tell his mother about the "special classes" he took...



I feel horrible for anyone that feels they are powerless over some out-of-control person emboldened in their religious zealotry.

But this can be answered in two words…  Jim Jones.  Although he wasn’t Christian, he exemplifies how one man can convince people to blindly follow someone and do their bidding even in suicide.  When I was in FL I was considering attending a church there. I ask around about it and heard a story about this one man that was considered an alcoholic and destitute.  He went to this church to seek help.  He sat in the back of the church listening to the preacher preach when someone from the congregation noticed him.  He alerted some of the ushers.  They escorted the man out and told him he is not welcome there dressed that way (he was wearing jeans and a t-shirt).  A couple of days later they found the man dead in a wooded area several miles away.  He apparently drank himself to death.  If I had gone to that church, on the first day I would have shown up in jeans and a casual shirt.  I’m certain they would have kicked me out.

I never attended that church.  EVER!


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> I feel deep sympathy in your experience, hotcoffee, because I too had a friend commit suicide over a priest condemning him to hell during a confession because he got involved with a certain female. Before the unfortunate ordeal, he called and asked that I meet him at a nearby restaurant to talk about God. When I saw him waiting he had a look of terror on his face, and began crying right there and asked if he was really going to hell. I counseled him with God's Promises of Mercy and Forgiveness through Jesus and that restoration with God was something he could place faith in. We prayed there at the table and he seemed to be a bit less shaken than before.  I later and very sadly learned that his fate ended tragically over the distraught anguish of the priest proclaiming damnation over him. I'll never forget the look of horror on Tom's face that morning when he asked me if he was going to go to hell.



Perhaps the priest was telling your friend to repent based on_ THE BIBLE _1 Cor 6:9-10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind...shall inherit the kingdom of God"
It's in your Bible, too.  Or are you the only one qualified to warn someone that his salvation is at risk?


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Perhaps the priest was telling your friend to repent based on_ THE BIBLE _1 Cor 6:9-10
> Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind...shall inherit the kingdom of God"
> It's in your Bible, too.  Or are you the only one qualified to warn someone that his salvation is at risk?



No libby, my friend was not given the option of repentance else he would not have even come to me with the anguish of having "hell" being pronounced upon him by the priest. It was not a matter of being told to repent - it was a matter of being outright condemned during his confession and being told by the priest that he was "going to go to hell."


----------



## Im_Me

Starman3000m said:


> I feel deep sympathy in your experience, hotcoffee, because I too had a friend commit suicide over a priest condemning him to hell during a confession because he got involved with a certain female. Before the unfortunate ordeal, he called and asked that I meet him at a nearby restaurant to talk about God. When I saw him waiting he had a look of terror on his face, and began crying right there and asked if he was really going to hell. I counseled him with God's Promises of Mercy and Forgiveness through Jesus and that restoration with God was something he could place faith in. We prayed there at the table and he seemed to be a bit less shaken than before.  I later and very sadly learned that his fate ended tragically over the distraught anguish of the priest proclaiming damnation over him. I'll never forget the look of horror on Tom's face that morning when he asked me if he was going to go to hell.



This also is not isolated to the Catholic Church.  I participated in a Christian group in college, mostly Protestant fundamentalists.  We went to a retreat one weekend led by someone's preacher.  It was two and a half days of "you are going to hell".  I was literally hysterical by saturday afternoon.  Spent the rest of the weekend outside.


----------



## Starman3000m

Im_Me said:


> This also is not isolated to the Catholic Church.  I participated in a Christian group in college, mostly Protestant fundamentalists.  We went to a retreat one weekend led by someone's preacher.  It was two and a half days of "you're are going to hell".  I was literally histerical by saturday afternoon.  Spent the rest of the weekend outside.



I agree this happens in all denominations that control people through fear and intimidation. It's ironic how many "religious leaders" are the ones who lead people away from God rather than lead people to God. Seminary schools have often been referred to as "cemetery schools".

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. (Proverbs 3:5-6)


----------



## Im_Me

Starman3000m said:


> I agree this happens in all denominations that control people through fear and intimidation. It's ironic how many "religious leaders" are the ones who lead people away from God rather than lead people to God. Seminary schools have often been referred to a "cemetery schools".
> 
> Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. (Proverbs 3:5-6)



I agree that we can not "religion" our way to salvation, we must have a deep personal relationship with God.  But Faith is best fed and cultivated, by "two or more gathered in His name".  If you have found or established a wonderfilled independent "Faith Family", all the glory to all of you...

One of the previous posts well illustrated the pitfalls of "independents" (i.e. the Jim Jones and David Karreshs).  A church setting is a safer option.  

We must scrupulously practice discernment.  We must question leadership and follow our own conscience.  We must learn and study.  The misguided are everywhere...and so are the abusers.


----------



## Im_Me

Starman3000m said:


> Actually, doesn't the Vatican teach that salvation is only for those within the RCC faith and condemnation is for anyone else outside the RCC faith?
> 
> ?



If the Catholic Church is teaching this it is not getting the message across:

"A Beliefnet/Newsweek poll conducted in 2005-AUG asked 1,004 randomly selected American adults about their religious beliefs. 7 One of the questions was: "Can a good person who isn't of your religious faith go to heaven or attain salvation, or not?" Results were:

Group: Yes, they can attain heaven/ No, they cannot attain heaven 

Evangelical Protestants: 68% /22% 
Other Protestants 83% /10% 
Roman Catholics 91% / 3% 
Non-Christians 73% / 3% 
American population 79% /12% 


The margin of error of the Beliefnet/Newsweek poll is ±3 percentage points."


----------



## hotcoffee

Im_Me said:


> This also is not isolated to the Catholic Church.  I participated in a Christian group in college, mostly Protestant fundamentalists.  We went to a retreat one weekend led by someone's preacher.  It was two and a half days of "you are going to hell".  I was literally hysterical by saturday afternoon.  Spent the rest of the weekend outside.



While it is true that all churches have problems... the RCC is the worst for telling people that the priests have some kind of special connection to God.  If a priest tells you that you are going to hell... it sticks....


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> No libby, my friend was not given the option of repentance else he would not have even come to me with the anguish of having "hell" being pronounced upon him by the priest. It was not a matter of being told to repent - it was a matter of being outright condemned during his confession and being told by the priest that he was "going to go to hell."



Well then, dear SM, _it's your friends fault, _not the church's.  He did not seek his own relationship with the Lord in prayer.
If, after talking to you, he still committed suicide, how can you blame the priest_ any more than you blame yourself_, which is zero!  Herein lies a problem with *gossip* and third party info; you do not know that the priest said any of this for sure, just your desperate, suicidal friend's perception of what he said.  You, therefore, would be guilty of bearing false witness at worst, and detraction at least.

Your desire to latch onto anything negative about Catholics is really getting disturbing.  You need help.


----------



## libby

hotcoffee said:


> While it is true that all churches have problems... the RCC is the worst for telling people that the priests have some kind of special connection to God.  If a priest tells you that you are going to hell... it sticks....



You are full of bull, the church does not teach that "priests have some kind of special connection with God".

You don't have a clue about what the Church teaches, you have blindly followed the likes of Jack Chick and Lorraine Boettner, but have not learned and discerned for yourself.
That makes you guilty of the very error you claim for Catholics.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Well then, dear SM, _it's your friends fault, _not the church's.  He did not seek his own relationship with the Lord in prayer.
> If, after talking to you, he still committed suicide, how can you blame the priest_ any more than you blame yourself_, which is zero!  Herein lies a problem with *gossip* and third party info; you do not know that the priest said any of this for sure, just your desperate, suicidal friend's perception of what he said.  You, therefore, would be guilty of bearing false witness at worst, and detraction at least.
> 
> Your desire to latch onto anything negative about Catholics is really getting disturbing.  You need help.



libby, there are many Catholic people I have talked with who relate similar stories of priest influence in their lives through fear and intimidation.

My friend was a devout Catholic and was already in a distraught condition when he came to me. My prayers with him were most assuredly heard by God and his soon tragic ending would not mean that he still went to hell as the priest condemned him to. He was still in a distraught frame of mind and that causes people to take desperate and sometimes tragic actions as in the case of my friend. Your attempt to chastise me over this incident is appalling and is nothing more than your continual attempt to defend those such leaders of the RCC who misuse the authority of their position as "religious" leaders and misguide the flock. Another Catholic friend of mine once told me that he hadn't been to "confession" for so long and was literally afraid that he would be struck by lightning if he entered the cathedral. 

And as far as my needing help, my help comes from God and I am able to seek Him in prayer anew each morning. I pray that one day you will know the True and Real Jesus of the New Testament and not the RCC Jesus whose Atoning Blood is not sufficient to cleanse you in this life and therefore needs to send you to "purgatory" before being allowed into heaven. 

Here is the hard truth: The RCC is built upon the foundation of shifting sands, idolatry and religious deception and you have bought into it - hook line and sinker. I have only tried to warn you as I try warning those involved in Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Islam and pseudo-Christian cults. Even through my warnings to you, I see you are much like those who are ready to believe another gospel and another Jesus. I pray for you and your family, libby, and hope that one day you will know what the following verse means:

*"Faithful are the wounds of a friend but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful."*


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> You are full of bull, the church does not teach that "priests have some kind of special connection with God".
> 
> You don't have a clue about what the Church teaches, you have blindly followed the likes of Jack Chick and Lorraine Boettner, but have not learned and discerned for yourself.
> That makes you guilty of the very error you claim for Catholics.



Is the "priest" able to pronounce "forgiveness" of your confessed sins to him by prescribing a number of "hail Marys" and "Our Fathers" ?


----------



## libby

> Your attempt to chastise me over this incident is appalling



It's only appalling to you because the shoe is on the other foot, as you have so continually chastised priests.  
You blame the priest who counseled your friend; you counseled him, too and the result was the same.  Does that make it your fault or the priests?  No, it was your friend who did not respond to the love Jesus offered.
A "devout Catholic" would  not be in an inappropriate relationship with a woman.  A "devout Catholic" would have sought the forgiveness of Jesus Christ.  A "devout Catholic" would not have despaired.  Just as you would say about those who are "truly saved", a "devout Catholic" seeks reconciliation with the Lord.  Either you or your friend is not telling the rest of the story.  Bottom line is, even if the priest did say such a thing, a "devout Catholic" would have known that the priests counsel was an error, and certainly would not have taken his life over it.
And for all of your friends who say priests have hurt them, I have 10 who have been blessed by the kindness and holiness of these servants of God.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> It's only appalling to you because the shoe is on the other foot, as you have so continually chastised priests.
> You blame the priest who counseled your friend; you counseled him, too and the result was the same.  Does that make it your fault or the priests?  No, it was your friend who did not respond to the love Jesus offered.
> A "devout Catholic" would  not be in an inappropriate relationship with a woman.  A "devout Catholic" would have sought the forgiveness of Jesus Christ.  A "devout Catholic" would not have despaired.  Just as you would say about those who are "truly saved", a "devout Catholic" seeks reconciliation with the Lord.  Either you or your friend is not telling the rest of the story.  Bottom line is, even if the priest did say such a thing, a "devout Catholic" would have known that the priests counsel was an error, and certainly would not have taken his life over it.
> And for all of your friends who say priests have hurt them, I have 10 who have been blessed by the kindness and holiness of these servants of God.



libby, there are many congregants and religious leaders in Mormonism who put all other faiths to shame when it comes to doing "good works" being "devout to their faith" and caring for their community. Being "religiously devout" is not helpful when it comes to your eternal fate if your devotion, trust and allegience is placed in the wrong place and in the wrong Saviour.

I reiterate and will continue to reiterate:

*Here is the hard truth:* The RCC is built upon the foundation of shifting sands, idolatry and religious deception and you have bought into it - hook line and sinker. I have only tried to warn you as I try warning those involved in Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Islam and pseudo-Christian cults. Even through my warnings to you, I see you are much like those who are ready to believe another gospel and another Jesus. I pray for you and your family, libby, and hope that one day you will know what the following verse means:

*"Faithful are the wounds of a friend but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful."*
(Proverbs 27:6)


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> libby, there are many congregants and religious leaders in Mormonism who put all other faiths to shame when it comes to doing "good works" being "devout to their faith" and caring for their community. Being "religiously devout" is not helpful when it comes to your eternal fate if your devotion, trust and allegience is placed in the wrong place and in the wrong Saviour.
> 
> I reiterate and will continue to reiterate:
> 
> *Here is the hard truth:* The RCC is built upon the foundation of shifting sands, idolatry and religious deception and you have bought into it - hook line and sinker. I have only tried to warn you as I try warning those involved in Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Islam and pseudo-Christian cults. Even through my warnings to you, I see you are much like those who are ready to believe another gospel and another Jesus. I pray for you and your family, libby, and hope that one day you will know what the following verse means:
> 
> *"Faithful are the wounds of a friend but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful."*
> (Proverbs 27:6)



"The church is the pillar and foundation of Truth" 1 Tim 3:15

I am just as confident that when you meet the Lord that you will find that His Bride, the Church, is [what-is-now-called] the Catholic Church.  History, theology and reason bear that out for those who seek the Truth.  I also believe that God will be ever merciful, because I think you do seek to please Jesus, which is more credit than you've ever given to any Catholic.
I would never be so arrogant as you are, "warning" all who do not agree with you.  Condemning people and their motives based on second hand stories is completely lacking charity.  
Assuming the worst out of Catholic clergy based on a few bad apples (comparatively speaking) is shameful.

My visible church, who's light is not hidden under a bushel as the invisible church necessarily is, has been built on the Cephas, the cornerstone being Jesus Christ, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.  
See you in Heaven.


----------



## Highlander

libby said:


> "The church is the pillar and foundation of Truth" 1 Tim 3:15
> 
> I am just as confident that when you meet the Lord that you will find that His Bride, the Church, is [what-is-now-called] the Catholic Church.  History, theology and reason bear that out for those who seek the Truth.  I also believe that God will be ever merciful, because I think you do seek to please Jesus, which is more credit than you've ever given to any Catholic.
> I would never be so arrogant as you are, "warning" all who do not agree with you.  Condemning people and their motives based on second hand stories is completely lacking charity.
> Assuming the worst out of Catholic clergy based on a few bad apples (comparatively speaking) is shameful.
> 
> My visible church, who's light is not hidden under a bushel as the invisible church necessarily is, has been built on the Cephas, the cornerstone being Jesus Christ, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
> See you in Heaven.



Well said. I guess it's good to see someone still trying to reason with the BAC group.  I gave up wasting my time and accept the fact that many of the are just    They mean well and are good people but their "elevator doesn't quite go to the top floor."


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> "The church is the pillar and foundation of Truth" 1 Tim 3:15
> 
> I am just as confident that when you meet the Lord that you will find that His Bride, the Church, is [what-is-now-called] the Catholic Church.  History, theology and reason bear that out for those who seek the Truth.  I also believe that God will be ever merciful, because I think you do seek to please Jesus, which is more credit than you've ever given to any Catholic.
> I would never be so arrogant as you are, "warning" all who do not agree with you.  Condemning people and their motives based on second hand stories is completely lacking charity.
> Assuming the worst out of Catholic clergy based on a few bad apples (comparatively speaking) is shameful.
> 
> My visible church, who's light is not hidden under a bushel as the invisible church necessarily is, has been built on the Cephas, the cornerstone being Jesus Christ, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
> See you in Heaven.



OK - But could you please answer this question before you go your way:

Is the "priest" able to pronounce "forgiveness" of your confessed sins to him by prescribing a number of "hail Marys" and "Our Fathers" ?


----------



## camily

1 Timothy 4
Apostasy
 1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 
 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 

 3 *men who forbid marriage* and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 

 4 *For everything created by God is good*, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; 

 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer. 
And this I cc'd with some highlights.....
1 Timothy 3
Overseers and Deacons
 1(A)It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the (B)office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 
 2(C)An overseer, then, must be above reproach, (D)*the husband of one wife*, (E)temperate, prudent, respectable, (F)hospitable, (G)able to teach, 

 3(H)not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, (I)free from the love of money. 

 4He must be one who (J)manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 

 5(*but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of (K)the church of God?), *
 6and not a new convert, so that he will not become (L)conceited and fall into the (M)condemnation incurred by the devil. 

 7And he must (N)have a good reputation with (O)those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and (P)the snare of the devil. 

 8(Q)Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, (R)or addicted to much wine (S)or fond of sordid gain, 

 9(T)but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 

 10(U)These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. 

 11Women must likewise be dignified, (V)not malicious gossips, but (W)temperate, faithful in all things. 

 12(X)Deacons must be (Y)*husbands of only one wife*, and (Z)good managers of *their children and their own households*.


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> OK - But could you please answer this question before you go your way:
> 
> Is the "priest" able to pronounce "forgiveness" of your confessed sins to him by prescribing a number of "hail Marys" and "Our Fathers" ?



No.


----------



## thatguy

Highlander said:


> Well said. I guess it's good to see someone still trying to reason with the BAC group.  I gave up wasting my time and accept the fact that many of the are just    They mean well and are good people but their "elevator doesn't quite go to the top floor."



what is really funny to me is that if Star and others like him had been born in pakistan they would be first in line to strap a bunch of c4 to themselves and try to blow up all the nonbeliving scum from the other side.

religious fanatics have it wrong, ALWAYS.


----------



## libby

camily said:


> 1 Timothy 4
> Apostasy
> 1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
> 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,
> 
> 3 *men who forbid marriage* and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.
> 
> 4 *For everything created by God is good*, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude;
> 
> 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.
> And this I cc'd with some highlights.....
> 1 Timothy 3
> Overseers and Deacons
> 1(A)It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the (B)office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.
> 2(C)An overseer, then, must be above reproach, (D)*the husband of one wife*, (E)temperate, prudent, respectable, (F)hospitable, (G)able to teach,
> 
> 3(H)not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, (I)free from the love of money.
> 
> 4He must be one who (J)manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
> 
> 5(*but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of (K)the church of God?), *
> 6and not a new convert, so that he will not become (L)conceited and fall into the (M)condemnation incurred by the devil.
> 
> 7And he must (N)have a good reputation with (O)those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and (P)the snare of the devil.
> 
> 8(Q)Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, (R)or addicted to much wine (S)or fond of sordid gain,
> 
> 9(T)but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.
> 
> 10(U)These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach.
> 
> 11Women must likewise be dignified, (V)not malicious gossips, but (W)temperate, faithful in all things.
> 
> 12(X)Deacons must be (Y)*husbands of only one wife*, and (Z)good managers of *their children and their own households*.



1 Cor 7 "...It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman"...followed by prescriptions for those who cannot abstain...onto vs. 8, "Now to the unmarried and to widow I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if tehy cannot exercise self control..."

So much for not being in the Bible.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> 1 Cor 7 "...It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman"...followed by prescriptions for those who cannot abstain...onto vs. 8, "Now to the unmarried and to widow I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if tehy cannot exercise self control..."
> 
> So much for not being in the Bible.



So much for those who cannot exercise self-control. They are the ones that should leave the priesthood and marry rather than take their inability to abstain out on the young and innocent kids.

BTW: *Paul's directives* were for those desiring a complete 100% devotion in the ministry of serving and worshipping God. That way, there would be no interference of having to tend to the cares of the family and whereby complete concentration could be devoted to spreading the True Gospel of Jesus Christ. If a religious leader (priest) cannot fulfill his vows of abstinence he should resign.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> No.



What is your response? 

No - you won't answer the question, or no to the following question:

Is the "priest" able to pronounce "forgiveness" of your confessed sins to him by prescribing a number of "hail Marys" and "Our Fathers"


----------



## hotcoffee

libby said:


> 1 Cor 7 "...It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman"...followed by prescriptions for those who cannot abstain...onto vs. 8, "Now to the unmarried and to widow I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if tehy cannot exercise self control..."
> 
> So much for not being in the Bible.




Now you are taking Paul out of context... think about it... Paul and the other Apostles were sure that Jesus would be coming right back....  

What they were saying was ... look if you can't keep your paws off a woman... it's better to marry her and remain a good example.... 

If you can control yourself... hang on til Jesus returns...


----------



## wxtornado

thatguy said:


> what is really funny to me is that if Star and others like him had been born in pakistan they would be first in line to strap a bunch of c4 to themselves and try to blow up all the nonbeliving scum from the other side.
> 
> religious fanatics have it wrong, ALWAYS.



He would also be worshiping a different god alltogether!


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> So much for those who cannot exercise self-control. They are the ones that should leave the priesthood and marry rather than take their inability to abstain out on the young and innocent kids.
> 
> BTW: *Paul's directives* were for those desiring a complete 100% devotion in the ministry of serving and worshipping God. That way, there would be no interference of having to tend to the cares of the family and whereby complete concentration could be devoted to spreading the True Gospel of Jesus Christ. If a religious leader (priest) cannot fulfill his vows of abstinence he should resign.



You'll get no argument from me on that point.  Just don't say celibacy isn't biblical.


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> What is your response?
> 
> No - you won't answer the question, or no to the following question:
> 
> Is the "priest" able to pronounce "forgiveness" of your confessed sins to him by prescribing a number of "hail Marys" and "Our Fathers"



No is the answer to your question.


----------



## libby

hotcoffee said:


> Now you are taking Paul out of context... think about it... Paul and the other Apostles were sure that Jesus would be coming right back....
> 
> What they were saying was ... look if you can't keep your paws off a woman... it's better to marry her and remain a good example....
> 
> If you can control yourself... hang on til Jesus returns...



Well, Paul and the Apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write this, and I'm pretty sure the Holy Spirit knew what He was doing, so your interpretion is the the wrong one.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> You'll get no argument from me on that point.  Just don't say celibacy isn't biblical.



I have never said it was "unbiblical" libby! 
Celibacy was not a requirement but it was commendable to those who vowed to remain so and for the specific purpose of dedicating and concentrating their entire self to the service of God.

*However, *here is what the Holy Bible states regarding those who take a vow unto God:

*When you make a vow to God, do not delay to pay it; For He has no pleasure in fools. Pay what you have vowed— Better not to vow than to vow and not pay.* (Ecclesiastes 5:4-5)


----------



## hotcoffee

libby said:


> Well, Paul and the Apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write this, and I'm pretty sure the Holy Spirit knew what He was doing, so your interpretion is the the wrong one.



Sure enough to base your eternal life on it?  

What would you do if you got to heaven and He didn't know your name because some priest didn't turn in the paperwork?


----------



## PsyOps

wxtornado said:


> He would also be worshiping a different god alltogether!



You guys seem to know so much about what folks would be doing in a different country; yet you claim what we believe as bogus.  What makes you so clairvoyant and believers so lost?


----------



## libby

hotcoffee said:


> Sure enough to base your eternal life on it?
> 
> What would you do if you got to heaven and He didn't know your name because some priest didn't turn in the paperwork?



Sure enough about what?  That the HS inspired Scripture?  Duh...

Kind of silly for you to pretend God is relying on priests to cross His "t"'s and dot His "i"'s, I think.


----------



## PsyOps

thatguy said:


> what is really funny to me is that if Star and others like him had been born in pakistan they would be first in line to strap a bunch of c4 to themselves and try to blow up all the nonbeliving scum from the other side.
> 
> religious fanatics have it wrong, ALWAYS.



And what do you suppose you would be doing if you grew up in Pakistan?


----------



## ItalianScallion

Starman3000m said:


> Is the "priest" able to pronounce "forgiveness" of your confessed sins to him by prescribing a number of "hail Marys" and "Our Fathers" ?





libby said:


> No.


Pleeezzzeee tell me when this changed; I'm all ears 



PsyOps said:


> And what do you suppose you would be doing if you grew up in Pakistan?


Same thing he's doing here: following a false belief system that will result in him losing his soul...


----------



## Im_Me

Starman3000m said:


> What is your response?
> 
> No - you won't answer the question, or no to the following question:
> 
> Is the "priest" able to pronounce "forgiveness" of your confessed sins to him by prescribing a number of "hail Marys" and "Our Fathers"





New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:  

"Penance is a sacrament of the New Law instituted by Christ in which forgiveness of sins committed after baptism is granted through the priest's absolution to those who with true sorrow confess their sins and promise to satisfy for the same.  

No Catholic believes that a priest, simply as an individual man, however pious or learned, has power to forgive sins. This power belongs to God alone; but He can and does exercise it through the ministration of men. Since He has seen fit to exercise it by means of this sacrament, it cannot be said that the Church or the priest interferes between the soul and God; on the contrary, penance is the removal of the one obstacle that keeps the soul away from God." 

This is the official definition of Penance.  I've heard from at least one priest that this is not necessary for forgiveness.  A prayer of real remorse is enough, as long as the penitent changes behavior.  I don't know if that's official teaching, though.   


Don't know the facts of your friend Starrman.  Generally priests will provide a path for absolution for anyone that truly regrets the act.  I wish the person had gone to another priest to discuss his sin.  I'm not sure what was in the heart of the priest he spoke to.  I'm sorry it happened.


----------



## Im_Me

hotcoffee said:


> Now you are taking Paul out of context... think about it... Paul and the other Apostles were sure that Jesus would be coming right back....
> 
> What they were saying was ... look if you can't keep your paws off a woman... it's better to marry her and remain a good example....
> 
> If you can control yourself... hang on til Jesus returns...



Who determines when something is taken in historical context and when it's inspired?


----------



## Starman3000m

Im_Me said:


> Edit
> ...Don't know the facts of your friend Starrman.  Generally priests will provide a path for absolution for anyone that truly regrets the act.  I wish the person had gone to another priest to discuss his sin.  I'm not sure what was in the heart of the priest he spoke to.  I'm sorry it happened.



Thank you for your thoughts.

I would like to ask one other question: Is a repentant parishioner allowed the alternate choice to skip confessing their sin(s) to the RCC priest altogether and, instead, pray in private directly to God - asking for God's Forgiveness through the cleansing Blood of His Son Jesus? And in so doing, invite Jesus to be The Lord of your life whereby the Holy Spirit of Promise can be sent to be your inner strength to live your life for God each day - as a Born Again Child of God?

*Ephesians Chapter 1:*

6: To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
7: In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
8: Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
9: Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
10: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
11: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
12: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
13: *In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,*
14: *Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.*

*For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. *(1 Corinthians 6:20)


----------



## ItalianScallion

Im_Me said:


> New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:
> "Penance is a sacrament of the New Law instituted by Christ in which forgiveness of sins committed after baptism is granted through the priest's absolution to those who with true sorrow confess their sins and promise to satisfy for the same.
> No Catholic believes that a priest, simply as an individual man, however pious or learned, has power to forgive sins. This power belongs to God alone; but He can and does exercise it through the ministration of men."


You contradicted you again  You said: "forgiveness is granted through a priest" then: "No Catholic believes a priest...has power to forgive sins"?? 
Which one is it? 
Now, I was taught this from an early age. I remember it like it was yesterday and it was 1961. We would sit in our classrooms at lunch time and listen to teaching songs on 33 1/3 rpm records. One song said: "...the priest has power to forgive I know." Those were the exact words of the song. 
So, then, why do they still have confessions if no Catholic believes this?? 


Im_Me said:


> Who determines when something is taken in historical context and when it's inspired?


Scripture interprets Scripture. One passage or verse is almost always  explained or clarified by another. 
"Context" a contraction of 2 words meaning: *CON*sistent with the entire *TEXT*. 
This is how we can come up with the fact that words like "water" sometimes means human birth, baptism or simply water depending on how it is used in the verse or passage.


----------



## ItalianScallion

thatguy said:


> what is really funny to me is that if Star and others like him had been born in pakistan they would be first in line to strap a bunch of c4 to themselves and try to blow up all the nonbeliving scum from the other side.
> religious fanatics have it wrong, ALWAYS.


Sure, God doesn't go to Pakistan much these days...
We have it "wrong always"?? Lemme splain my motives to you Lucy. One verse covers the reason that a few of us here "contend" for our faith so strongly:
"...stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel without being frightened in any way by those who oppose you. _*This is sign to them that they will be destroyed*_, but that you will be saved-and that by God." (Philippians 1 v 27, 28)


----------



## Im_Me

Starman3000m said:


> Thank you for your thoughts.
> 
> I would like to ask one other question: Is a repentant parishioner allowed the alternate choice to skip confessing their sin(s) to the RCC priest altogether and, instead, pray in private directly to God - asking for God's Forgiveness through the cleansing Blood of His Son Jesus? And in so doing, invite Jesus to be The Lord of your life whereby the Holy Spirit of Promise can be sent to be your inner strength to live your life for God each day - as a Born Again Child of God?



As Christian Catholics we pray every day, hopefully through out the day.  You are expected to go to confession at least once per year.


----------



## Im_Me

ItalianScallion said:


> You contradicted you again  You said: "forgiveness is granted through a priest" then: "No Catholic believes a priest...has power to forgive sins"??
> Which one is it?
> Now, I was taught this from an early age. I remember it like it was yesterday and it was 1961. We would sit in our classrooms at lunch time and listen to teaching songs on 33 1/3 rpm records. One song said: "...the priest has power to forgive I know." Those were the exact words of the song.
> So, then, why do they still have confessions if no Catholic believes this??



I'm quoting not writing, but when you read all the words it says: The Sacrement is administered through the priest...The forgiveness comes from God.  



ItalianScallion said:


> Scripture interprets Scripture. One passage or verse is almost always  explained or clarified by another.
> "Context" a contraction of 2 words meaning: *CON*sistent with the entire *TEXT*.
> This is how we can come up with the fact that words like "water" sometimes means human birth, baptism or simply water depending on how it is used in the verse or passage.



Yea right.  If you accept the point- it's inspired.  If you reject the point it's "out of context"


----------



## libby

Just as God provided the words of men (priests) to communicate His forgiveness to His people in the OT:

Leviticus 19:20–22 
"If a man lies carnally with a woman . . . they shall not be put to death. . . . But he shall bring a guilt offering for himself to the Lord . . .* And the priest shall make atonement for him *with the ram of the guilt offering before the Lord for his sin which he has committed; and the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven him."

even though the forgiveness, strictly speaking, is only from God:

Isaiah 43:25 the Lord declares: "I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins." 

So, too, in the New Covenant, which does not negate the Old Covenant, but fulfills it, has provided a means for men to hear God's gift of forgiveness.

John 20:21–23:
Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."


Pronouncing Christ's forgiveness is the easy part, and the part BAC's like to hold up as the only thing that matters.  However, there is the commission to "retain" sins as well.  How is an Apostle (or their successors, the priests) supposed to "retain" a sin if they do not know what it is?  This whole verse presupposes that the penitent has come to confess.

Paul tells us: "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation" (2 Cor. 5:18)

2 Cor 2:10  "What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ."  Paul even talks about the punishment for the offendee in this chapter!  Why?  Because it is_ just_!
Now Paul here is talking about forgiving others, but in his ministry_ he clearly has a role in pronouncing forgiveness_.  Why else would he even mention himself as offering forgiveness if it is only between the offendee, the offended, and God?  

God set up the system for our sakes, not for His.  In His Mercy and Wisdom He knows that acknowledging our sins to one another, and hearing the words of His forgiveness, aid us on the path to holiness.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Just as God provided the words of men (priests) to communicate His forgiveness to His people in the OT:
> 
> Leviticus 19:20–22
> "If a man lies carnally with a woman . . . they shall not be put to death. . . . But he shall bring a guilt offering for himself to the Lord . . .* And the priest shall make atonement for him *with the ram of the guilt offering before the Lord for his sin which he has committed; and the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven him."
> 
> even though the forgiveness, strictly speaking, is only from God:
> 
> Isaiah 43:25 the Lord declares: "I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins."
> 
> So, too, in the New Covenant, which does not negate the Old Covenant, but fulfills it, has provided a means for men to hear God's gift of forgiveness.
> 
> John 20:21–23:
> Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."
> 
> 
> Pronouncing Christ's forgiveness is the easy part, and the part BAC's like to hold up as the only thing that matters.  However, there is the commission to "retain" sins as well.  How is an Apostle (or their successors, the priests) supposed to "retain" a sin if they do not know what it is?  This whole verse presupposes that the penitent has come to confess.
> 
> Paul tells us: "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation" (2 Cor. 5:18)
> 
> 2 Cor 2:10  "What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ."  Paul even talks about the punishment for the offendee in this chapter!  Why?  Because it is_ just_!
> Now Paul here is talking about forgiving others, but in his ministry_ he clearly has a role in pronouncing forgiveness_.  Why else would he even mention himself as offering forgiveness if it is only between the offendee, the offended, and God?
> 
> God set up the system for our sakes, not for His.  In His Mercy and Wisdom He knows that acknowledging our sins to one another, and hearing the words of His forgiveness, aid us on the path to holiness.



And that is why Jesus is now our High Priest and Mediator between believers and God. There is no longer a need for a Temple high priest as in the OT days.

The indwelling Holy Spirit is our Intercessor, Comforter, Teacher and strength to live our present lives in the light of God's Truth. Placing your trust in another man, statue, or dead person is idolatry and is an attempt to indirectly reach God when we can come boldly before the throne of God as his children. It is the Holy Spirit that is God's representative on earth and for believers to abide in through being Born Again.

*Jesus alone is our High Priest: *

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 
Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:15-16)


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> And that is why Jesus is now our High Priest and Mediator between believers and God. There is no longer a need for a Temple high priest as in the OT days.
> 
> The indwelling Holy Spirit is our Intercessor, Comforter, Teacher and strength to live our present lives in the light of God's Truth. Placing your trust in another man, statue, or dead person is idolatry and is an attempt to indirectly reach God when we can come boldly before the throne of God as his children. It is the Holy Spirit that is God's representative on earth and for believers to abide in through being Born Again.
> 
> *Jesus alone is our High Priest: *
> 
> For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
> Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:15-16)



I repeat, nowhere did Jesus abolish the old ways, He perfected them.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> I repeat, nowhere did Jesus abolish the old ways, He perfected them.



libby, God abolished the necessity of continual blood sacrifices and Temple offerings when the Atoning Blood of Christ was shed for the sins of mankind. There is no further need for a Temple high priest (or any priest) to make those offerings on behalf of the people. We each give an account directly to God through Jesus - not through anyone or anything else.

BTW: That is also why the Eucharist does not turn to the literal flesh and blood as taught by RCC doctrine but the Communion is only a symbolic remembrance.


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> libby, God abolished the necessity of continual blood sacrifices and Temple offerings when the Atoning Blood of Christ was shed for the sins of mankind. There is no further need for a Temple high priest (or any priest) to make those offerings on behalf of the people. We each give an account directly to God through Jesus - not through anyone or anything else.
> 
> BTW: That is also why the Eucharist does not turn to the literal flesh and blood as taught by RCC doctrine but the Communion is only a symbolic remembrance.



Jesus reiterated 4 times in the Gospel of John that the Eucharist is, indeed, His Body and Blood.
You want to now go into the apologetics for the Eucharist?


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> libby, God abolished the necessity of continual blood sacrifices and Temple offerings when the Atoning Blood of Christ was shed for the sins of mankind. There is no further need for a Temple high priest (or any priest) to make those offerings on behalf of the people. We each give an account directly to God through Jesus - not through anyone or anything else.
> 
> BTW: That is also why the Eucharist does not turn to the literal flesh and blood as taught by RCC doctrine but the Communion is only a symbolic remembrance.



No, He became man and offered His Son as the Perfect Sacrifice, and, unencumered by time and place, continually stands before the Father as "a Lamb that seemed to have been slain." Rev. 5.  The Lamb is not standing before the Father in His Glory, but as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
The High Priest has entered the True Tabernacle, but that does not say that we do not participate in the Sacrifice as the Israelites did in the Old Covenant.  
His Presence is supernatural, which is neither literal nor symbolic.  It is something greater than the natural world, and I believe it 100%.  
The Hebrews had to eat the flesh of the lamb at the first Passover, and we do the same now.  Who am I to question Jesus as to how this could be good for my growth in holiness?  He commanded it, I do it.  Simple as that, He is My Lord and My God.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> Jesus reiterated 4 times in the Gospel of John that the Eucharist is, indeed, His Body and Blood.
> You want to now go into the apologetics for the Eucharist?



Jesus spoke many times with words that had a symbolic (not literal) meaning. The bread and wine did not turn into His literal flesh and blood at the time of the Last Supper as He was there in the presence of His Apostles. Jesus said to partake of that communion as a "remembrance".

The RCC has erroneously misinterpreted Jesus' words and has developed another doctrine of man through teaching that the Eucharist is the literal transformation of Jesus' flesh and blood. Jesus is Alive right now in a resurrected body and He is whom we are to seek for forgiveness through the Atoning Blood that He has already shed once and for all time.

The RCC is teaching another Jesus and another Gospel.


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> Jesus spoke many times with words that had a symbolic (not literal) meaning. The bread and wine did not turn into His literal flesh and blood at the time of the Last Supper as He was there in the presence of His Apostles. Jesus said to partake of that communion as a "remembrance".
> 
> The RCC has erroneously misinterpreted Jesus' words and has developed another doctrine of man through teaching that the Eucharist is the literal transformation of Jesus' flesh and blood. Jesus is Alive right now in a resurrected body and He is whom we are to seek for forgiveness through the Atoning Blood that He has already shed once and for all time.
> 
> The RCC is teaching another Jesus and another Gospel.



In vs. 63 the Holy Bible says, "it is the Spirit that gives life...".  Things of the Spirit are not symbolic, they are supernatural.


----------



## Starman3000m

libby said:


> In vs. 63 the Holy Bible says, "it is the Spirit that gives life...".  Things of the Spirit are not symbolic, they are supernatural.



No argument there libby. However, what seems "supernatural" to us is really Natural to God.

That is why Jesus stated that a person *Must Be Born Again *- of the Spirit, in order to enter the Kingdom of God and receive Eternal Life.

The Bread and Wine Communion is still only "symbolic" but spiritually receiving the Holy Spirit is the real Baptism by Fire that John the Baptist said Jesus would Baptize believers with.  Being Born Again of The Spirit is what Jesus spoke of as being the Real essence of receiving Eternal Life and is the only way through which we become Children of God.

As Jesus said, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, but that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit" Yes Must Be Born Again.

John 3:5-7 (King James Version)

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. *That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. *Marvel not that I said unto thee, *Ye must be born again. *(John 3:5-7)

That is the greater emphasis by Jesus in order for one be able to partake of The Kingdom of God. Yet, Highlander's thread here seems to mock Jesus' words.


----------



## thatguy

PsyOps said:


> And what do you suppose you would be doing if you grew up in Pakistan?



questioning, just like i am here.

and i am not clarvoyant, i am mearly saying that "believers" have accepted on faith what they have been told is the word of god, therefor i believe they would also accept whatever religion they would have been raised under had they been born on the other side of the world. Additionally, those that are fanatics here under christianity (like starr, 2ndA and foodcritic) would also be fanatics under whatever religion they happened to be born to/raised with....


----------



## libby

Starman3000m said:


> No argument there libby. However, what seems "supernatural" to us is really Natural to God.
> 
> That is why Jesus stated that a person *Must Be Born Again *- of the Spirit, in order to enter the Kingdom of God and receive Eternal Life.
> 
> The Bread and Wine Communion is still only "symbolic" but spiritually receiving the Holy Spirit is the real Baptism by Fire that John the Baptist said Jesus would Baptize believers with.  Being Born Again of The Spirit is what Jesus spoke of as being the Real essence of receiving Eternal Life and is the only way through which we become Children of God.
> 
> As Jesus said, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, but that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit" Yes Must Be Born Again.
> 
> John 3:5-7 (King James Version)
> 
> Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. *That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. *Marvel not that I said unto thee, *Ye must be born again. *(John 3:5-7)
> 
> That is the greater emphasis by Jesus in order for one be able to partake of The Kingdom of God. Yet, Highlander's thread here seems to mock Jesus' words.



The Old Covenant is symbolic, the New Covenant is supernatural.

Jn6:51 "I am the Living Bread that came down from Heaven" recalling that miraculous bread that nourished them in the desert.

Jn 6:53 "Amen, amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you do not have life within you."

vs. 54 "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day."

vs. 55 "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink"

vs. 63 "the words I have spoken to you are Spirit [supernatural] and life."

I cannot think of any other time in the Gospels that Jesus repeats Himself so many times.  He makes no corrections when disciples walk away.

1 Cor 11:27 tells us "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of teh Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord".  A person is not guilty of the body and blood of another person if they throw darts at the persons picture, which is, indeed, a symbol.
The picture of my mother on the piano is a symbol.  The gecko in the insurance commercial is a symbol.  The jolly green giant is a symbol.  
The Eucharist is not a symbol.


----------



## thatguy

libby said:


> The Old Covenant is symbolic, the New Covenant is supernatural.
> 
> Jn6:51 "I am the Living Bread that came down from Heaven" recalling that miraculous bread that nourished them in the desert.
> 
> Jn 6:53 "Amen, amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you do not have life within you."
> 
> vs. 54 "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day."
> 
> vs. 55 "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink"
> 
> vs. 63 "the words I have spoken to you are Spirit [supernatural] and life."
> 
> I cannot think of any other time in the Gospels that Jesus repeats Himself so many times.  He makes no corrections when disciples walk away.
> 
> 1 Cor 11:27 tells us "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of teh Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord".  A person is not guilty of the body and blood of another person if they throw darts at the persons picture, which is, indeed, a symbol.
> The picture of my mother on the piano is a symbol.  The gecko in the insurance commercial is a symbol.  The jolly green giant is a symbol.
> The Eucharist is not a symbol.




so when the little bell rings, that little cracker actually turns into jesus?


----------



## libby

thatguy said:


> so when the little bell rings, that little cracker actually turns into jesus?



Yup.


----------



## thatguy

libby said:


> Yup.



ok.... it is certainly your right to feel that way.

I have spoken with catholics that have had the same and the opposite stance.
peace, and good work not being a fanatic


----------



## libby

thatguy said:


> ok.... it is certainly your right to feel that way.
> 
> I have spoken with catholics that have had the same and the opposite stance.
> peace, and good work not being a fanatic



Well, actually, I am a fanatic.  I just don't think it's my job to condemn others for not being that way.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Im_Me said:


> I'm quoting not writing, but when you read all the words it says: The Sacrement is administered through the priest...The forgiveness comes from God.


Irrelevant. YOU are making the point yours by your quotes woman, so you ARE contradicting yourself!!!  


libby said:


> Leviticus 19:20–22 "If a man lies carnally with a woman . . . they shall not be put to death. . . . But he shall bring a guilt offering for himself to the Lord . . .* And the priest shall make atonement for him *with the ram of the guilt offering before the Lord for his sin which he has committed; and the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven him."
> However, there is the commission to "retain" sins as well.  How is an Apostle (or their successors, the priests) supposed to "retain" a sin if they do not know what it is?


Actually, the Leviticus passage is symbolic and those OT sins were never forgiven by what the high priest did nor were they forgiven under the old covenant. They weren't forgiven until Christ died. (Romans 3 v 25, 26 and Hebrews 10 v 11, 12). This is why CONTEXT is soo important...

You seem to not understand what that passage (Matthew 16 or 18) means either. (Is that the one you're speaking of here)? The power the Apostles had to forgive sins was not the same power that God has to forgive them. Jesus gave them *and us* the power to "effect or cause" forgiveness by leading someone to Jesus. When we lead them to salvation we (in essence) have caused forgiveness to be had by them [although we did not actually forgive their sins]. If they rejected the offer of salvation, we in essence have not forgiven their sins and they are said to be "retained". Please tell me where the verse you're speaking of is Libby. Thanks.


----------



## PsyOps

thatguy said:


> questioning, just like i am here.
> 
> and i am not clarvoyant, i am mearly saying that "believers" have accepted on faith what they have been told is the word of god, therefor i believe they would also accept whatever religion they would have been raised under had they been born on the other side of the world. Additionally, those that are fanatics here under christianity (like starr, 2ndA and foodcritic) would also be fanatics under whatever religion they happened to be born to/raised with....



Considering you have concluded that you would have the same mind you have here in the good old FREE USA, then the same would be for me.  that being the case I would be no more inclined to believe in Islam than I do now, or anymore than you would.


----------



## Im_Me

ItalianScallion said:


> Irrelevant. YOU are making the point yours by your quotes woman, so you ARE contradicting yourself!!!



"It is not true that for the Catholic the mere "telling of one's sins" suffices to obtain their forgiveness. Without sincere sorrow and purpose of amendment, confession avails nothing, the pronouncement of absolution is of no effect, and the guilt of the sinner is greater than before. " (Same source) 

PENANCE is a sacrement that is adminstered by a priest.  The priest grants ABSOLUTION (generally in all cases unless he feels there is no real remorse).  FORGIVENESS is the desired end.  That truly comes from God.  Even us Catholics realize that the priest hears your confession, but God knows your heart.  

If you don't agree then fine.  Feel free to keep your opinion to yourself.  I don't mind.  

(Yea.  Like that will happen.)


----------



## ItalianScallion

Im_Me said:


> "It is not true that for the Catholic the mere "telling of one's sins" suffices to obtain their forgiveness. Without sincere sorrow and purpose of amendment, confession avails nothing, the pronouncement of absolution is of no effect, and the guilt of the sinner is greater than before.
> PENANCE is a sacrement that is adminstered by a priest.  The priest grants ABSOLUTION (generally in all cases unless he feels there is no real remorse).  FORGIVENESS is the desired end.  That truly comes from God.  Even us Catholics realize that the priest hears your confession, but God knows your heart. If you don't agree then fine.  Feel free to keep your opinion to yourself.  I don't mind.   (Yea.  Like that will happen.)


I think you're starting to like me...  I've gone from ignore to a relative of yours...
And what are you banging your head for? You didn't even address my statement about the priest having the power to forgive sins. 
Regarding what you said above, I can't agree with that (of course). Did the RCC change this? I was always told to confess to a priest, say 5 10 or 20 worthless prayers to a dead person and be sorry and we'd be forgiven...BUT I wasn't even saved back then. So how can a priest grant "ABSOLUTION" if the confessor is not saved??? AND how can one feel true remorse and forgiveness if they aren't truly saved??? God does not forgive the lost of their sins, ever.


----------



## Im_Me

ItalianScallion said:


> I think you're starting to like me...  I've gone from ignore to a relative of yours...
> And what are you banging your head for? You didn't even address my statement about the priest having the power to forgive sins.
> Regarding what you said above, I can't agree with that (of course). Did the RCC change this? I was always told to confess to a priest, say 5 10 or 20 worthless prayers to a dead person and be sorry and we'd be forgiven...BUT I wasn't even saved back then. So how can a priest grant "ABSOLUTION" if the confessor is not saved??? AND how can one feel true remorse and forgiveness if they aren't truly saved??? God does not forgive the lost of their sins, ever.



I ignore a lot of my family So don't feel too special.  (To be accurate you were Uncle Bill before I ignored you.)

You had a lousy Catholic up bringing, that's a fact.  But now I think you should adjust ...I don't know, something; because your extreme prejudice is showing (and it ain't pretty).   

No matter how much you do any of the Catholic rituals, you aren't saved if you don't believe that Jesus is your savior; any more than the guy from The Hills was saved by duckin' in the water with the Baldwin guy (he was just acting, in case you were confused).  You also need to have a relationship with Jesus not just talk to the priest, or you are doing it wrong!


----------



## libby

> No matter how much you do any of the Catholic rituals, you aren't saved if you don't believe that Jesus is your savior; any more than the guy from The Hills was saved by duckin' in the water with the Baldwin guy (he was just acting, in case you were confused).  You also need to have a relationship with Jesus not just talk to the priest, or you are doing it wrong!


[/QUOTE]

Amen!!


----------



## libby

ItalianScallion said:


> Irrelevant. YOU are making the point yours by your quotes woman, so you ARE contradicting yourself!!!
> 
> Actually, the Leviticus passage is symbolic and those OT sins were never forgiven by what the high priest did nor were they forgiven under the old covenant. They weren't forgiven until Christ died. (Romans 3 v 25, 26 and Hebrews 10 v 11, 12). This is why CONTEXT is soo important...
> 
> You seem to not understand what that passage (Matthew 16 or 18) means either. (Is that the one you're speaking of here)? The power the Apostles had to forgive sins was not the same power that God has to forgive them. Jesus gave them *and us* the power to "effect or cause" forgiveness by leading someone to Jesus. When we lead them to salvation we (in essence) have caused forgiveness to be had by them [although we did not actually forgive their sins]. If they rejected the offer of salvation, we in essence have not forgiven their sins and they are said to be "retained". Please tell me where the verse you're speaking of is Libby. Thanks.



The Leviticus passage is about the work of a priest for atonement of sin.  This is a ritual prescribed by God Almighty, not for forgiveness, but for discipline/expiation/paying your debt to society/temporal punishment/whatever you call it.  *You are 100% correct *that until Jesus lived, died and rose again there was no forgiveness in the eternal sense.  No one saw Heaven (save a few exceptions), but insofar as their humanity could, men had to expiate their sin.  The discipline necessary to satisfy Divine Justice.  I do not understand howcome this is so tough for you, it is right there in Scripture.  My only guess is that it reeks Catholicism and you just have to resist that to your dying breath no matter how much evidence is presented to you.
Yes, I am speaking of Mt. 16.


> Jesus gave them and us the power to "effect or cause" forgiveness by leading someone to Jesus. When we lead them to salvation we (in essence) have caused forgiveness to be had by them [although we did not actually forgive their sins].


Whoa!  You are sounding kinda Catholic here.  Does this make you a mediator?  Blasphemy!
So if your version is true then tell me your version of Ananias, Sapphira and Simon the Magician.  If the Apostles accepted these people into the community of believers, the Apostles effected their forgiveness through their ministry, explain to me why Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead?  Were they not saved, or did they suffer temporal punishment for their sin?
What of Simon?  If the Apostles had effected his forgiveness, how is it his heart was not "upright" before the Lord?  Wasn't Jesus' Sacrifice sufficient to cover his sin?
The Bible does not say that the Apostles "retained" the sins of these three.  You guys have a problem here.


----------



## thatguy

PsyOps said:


> Considering you have concluded that you would have the same mind you have here in the good old FREE USA, then the same would be for me.  that being the case I would be no more inclined to believe in Islam than I do now, or anymore than you would.



i dont think you are getting my point, or if you are you aren't being very honest with yourself.

If we would both be of the same mind we have here, then i would be a questioner, and you would be an accepter. You would accept what you have been taught, and i would question it. So if we were raised on islam, you would accept it, i would question.


----------



## wxtornado

PsyOps said:


> You guys seem to know so much about what folks would be doing in a different country; yet you claim what we believe as bogus.  What makes you so clairvoyant and believers so lost?



No clairvoyance needed - it's quite obvious to the intellectually honest.


----------



## wxtornado

PsyOps said:


> And what do you suppose you would be doing if you grew up in Pakistan?



If he was a religious man, probably worshiping a deity named Allah.


----------



## wxtornado

thatguy said:


> i dont think you are getting my point, or if you are you aren't being very honest with yourself.



Imagine that.


----------



## wxtornado

thatguy said:


> If we would both be of the same mind we have here, then i would be a questioner, and you would be an accepter. You would accept what you have been taught, and i would question it. So if we were raised on islam, you would accept it, i would question.




He knows what you're talking about - everyone in the gallery knows what you're talking about.  It's just hard for them to accept.  We are all born atheists until we are taught which deity to worship.  If I happen to be born in India from Hindu parents, then my God is called Krishna.  This is not rocket science.


----------



## This_person

wxtornado said:


> He knows what you're talking about - everyone in the gallery knows what you're talking about.  It's just hard for them to accept.  We are all born atheists until we are taught which deity to worship.  If I happen to be born in India from Hindu parents, then my God is called Krishna.  This is not rocket science.


That's really quite an assumption.

How does it account for atheists, converted Jews/Muslims/Christians/Wiccans/etc., etc., etc., to other faiths?


----------



## wxtornado

This_person said:


> That's really quite an assumption.
> 
> How does it account for atheists, converted Jews/Muslims/Christians/Wiccans/etc., etc., etc., to other faiths?



...see the beginning of thatguy's post #795.....


----------



## This_person

wxtornado said:


> ...see the beginning of thatguy's post #795.....


I got the point, I'm asking for an explanation of how that works.  If we believe only what we're taught, and people are taught Judaism, why would they not ONLY change to be atheists?  Why would some Christians choose to become Wiccans?  Or Jews accept Christ?  If they're being honest and all intellectually superior as you seem to think YOUR position is (though proven as weak scientifically as any religion over and over again ), then why change TO religion, instead of only FROM religion?


----------



## thatguy

This_person said:


> I got the point, I'm asking for an explanation of how that works.  If we believe only what we're taught, and people are taught Judaism, why would they not ONLY change to be atheists?  Why would some Christians choose to become Wiccans?  Or Jews accept Christ?  If they're being honest and all intellectually superior as you seem to think YOUR position is (though proven as weak scientifically as any religion over and over again ), then why change TO religion, instead of only FROM religion?



accepters and questioners explains it pretty well.

those that accpet, accpet what they have been taught and stay with it for the most part.

those that question may find another answer (other than what they have been taught) that is more satisfying. therefor a questioner very well may choose to have a different religion, or choose no religion at all.


----------



## wxtornado

thatguy said:


> accepters and questioners explains it pretty well.
> 
> those that accpet, accpet what they have been taught and stay with it for the most part.
> 
> those that question may find another answer (other than what they have been taught) that is more satisfying. therefor a questioner very well may choose to have a different religion, or choose no religion at all.



He know's exactly what we are saying - he's just trying to muddy it up as per usual.  I yawned.


----------



## This_person

thatguy said:


> accepters and questioners explains it pretty well.
> 
> those that accpet, accpet what they have been taught and stay with it for the most part.
> 
> those that question may find another answer (other than what they have been taught) that is more satisfying. therefor a questioner very well may choose to have a different religion, or choose no religion at all.


So, one could accept religion A (let's say being born an atheist), and then reject that and accept religion B (say, being taught and then subsequently believing in Christianity), and therefore be a questioner who has come to a valid conclusion for them.  Which, by the way you're describing it with us all being born atheists, would be EVERYBODY.

 Gotcha


----------



## thatguy

This_person said:


> So, one could accept religion A (let's say being born an atheist), and then reject that and accept religion B (say, being taught and then subsequently believing in Christianity), and therefore be a questioner who has come to a valid conclusion for them.  Which, by the way you're describing it with us all being born atheists, would be EVERYBODY.
> 
> Gotcha



i didn't describe us all as having been born aethists, try to keep up...


i have been talking about accepting what has been taught to you by your religious culture or questioning it. so you got nothing, as usual


----------



## This_person

thatguy said:


> i didn't describe us all as having been born aethists, try to keep up...
> 
> 
> i have been talking about accepting what has been taught to you by your religious culture or questioning it. so you got nothing, as usual


No, you didn't.  Wx did.

Do you believe, then, they we were born Christians/Wiccans/etc.?  That being taught it is simply a biproduct of how we were born?

If questioners eventually accept one form or another of religion, after having been taught more than one, are they still inherently questioners or accepters?


----------



## thatguy

This_person said:


> No, you didn't.  Wx did.
> 
> Do you believe, then, they we were born Christians/Wiccans/etc.?  That being taught it is simply a biproduct of how we were born?
> 
> If questioners eventually accept one form or another of religion, after having been taught more than one, are they still inherently questioners or accepters?



i think you just being retarded for the sake of being retarded at this point....


----------



## This_person

thatguy said:


> i think you just being retarded for the sake of being retarded at this point....


Wx stated it, I'm just wondering if you agree.

Are we born atheists, or born with religion in our consciousness?


----------



## thatguy

This_person said:


> Wx stated it, I'm just wondering if you agree.
> 
> Are we born atheists, or born with religion in our consciousness?





> i have been talking about accepting what has been taught to you by your religious culture or questioning it. so you got nothing, as usual



put your big boy thinking cap on and figure it out for yourself, or do you not know what "taught" means?


----------



## wxtornado

thatguy said:


> i think you just being retarded for the sake of being retarded at this point....



Welcome to last year


----------



## This_person

thatguy said:


> put your big boy thinking cap on and figure it out for yourself, or do you not know what "taught" means?


OKay, so if they were "taught", then that means they weren't originally believers, right?

And, if they weren't originally believers, then they would be without belief in a religious system.

Now, the definition of atheist is "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods".

So, if they are born without belief, then they are born atheists.

Now, if they're born atheists, and they are then taught a religion and believe it, they are accepters in your view, right?  But, if they are born atheist, taught a religion, reject that religion, taught another religion, and then accept that religion - are they accepters or questioners?  They both questioned and accepted religion.

Seems you have some work to do on your theory.


----------



## This_person

wxtornado said:


> Welcome to last year


Did you ever come up with a repeatable, peer reviewable test that takes a single cell and creates all of the live ever on planet earth?  Or, that takes a single animal which can evolve into all the other animals that have ever been on earth?  The common ancestor for the horse and the bat?

If not, do you accept that the "science" of evolution of mankind from a single cell that magically appears in lifeless muck is no more science that ID?


----------



## thatguy

This_person said:


> OKay, so if they were "taught", then that means they weren't originally believers, right?
> 
> And, if they weren't originally believers, then they would be without belief in a religious system.
> 
> Now, the definition of atheist is *"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods".*
> So, if they are born without belief, then they are born atheists.
> 
> Now, if they're born atheists, and they are then taught a religion and believe it, they are accepters in your view, right?  But, if they are born atheist, taught a religion, reject that religion, taught another religion, and then accept that religion - are they accepters or questioners?  They both questioned and accepted religion.
> 
> Seems you have some work to do on your theory.



i disagree with the premise that a baby fits that definition of atheist.

but then again, what should i expect from someone being retarded for the sake of being retarded?


----------



## This_person

thatguy said:


> i disagree with the premise that a baby fits that definition of atheist.
> 
> but then again, what should i expect from someone being retarded for the sake of being retarded?


At what age is there disbelief acceptable to you?


----------



## wxtornado

thatguy said:


> but then again, what should i expect from someone being retarded for the sake of being retarded?



This.


----------



## wxtornado

This_person said:


> Did you ever come up with a repeatable, peer reviewable test that takes a single cell and creates all of the live ever on planet earth?  Or, that takes a single animal which can evolve into all the other animals that have ever been on earth?  The common ancestor for the horse and the bat?
> 
> If not, do you accept that the "science" of evolution of mankind from a single cell that magically appears in lifeless muck is no more science that ID?




Continuously showing that you know nothing about what you oppose, and continuously misrepresenting the other side is called a straw man argument, and does nothing but expose the intellectual bankruptcy of the poor pastor or priest that taught you this.  If you came up with this "magically appears in lifeless muck" on your own, then you are just demonstating, yet again, the poverty of your own knowledge.


----------



## This_person

wxtornado said:


> Continuously showing that you know nothing about what you oppose, and continuously misrepresenting the other side is called a straw man argument, and does nothing but expose the intellectual bankruptcy of the poor pastor or priest that taught you this.  If you came up with this "magically appears in lifeless muck" on your own, then you are just demonstating, yet again, the poverty of your own knowledge.


What am I misrepresenting?  Correct me if you believe me to be wrong.


----------



## wxtornado

This_person said:


> What am I misrepresenting?  Correct me if you believe me to be wrong.



Nah, you just keep on believing that a crab evolved from a sponge.


----------



## This_person

wxtornado said:


> Nah, you just keep on believing that a crab evolved from a sponge.


I *don't* believe that.  That's what evolutionary theory teaches, but I don't subscribe to that part of it.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Im_Me said:


> I ignore a lot of my family So don't feel too special.  (To be accurate you were Uncle Bill before I ignored you.)
> You had a lousy Catholic up bringing, that's a fact.  But now I think you should adjust ...I don't know, something; because your extreme prejudice is showing (and it ain't pretty).
> No matter how much you do any of the Catholic rituals, you aren't saved if you don't believe that Jesus is your savior; any more than the guy from The Hills was saved by duckin' in the water with the Baldwin guy (he was just acting, in case you were confused).  You also need to have a relationship with Jesus not just talk to the priest, or you are doing it wrong!


Sorry to hear about your _loving_ family. You can continue to be my niece but you need to listen to your Uncle Bill more. 
How could I have had a "lousy Catholic upbringing"??? They taught me the same things they taught you. And, where is my prejudice, niecey? 
You said: "No matter how much you do any of the Catholic rituals, you aren't saved if you don't believe that Jesus is your savior"??? This sounds very contradictory to what you've said earlier. I like to hear you say this stuff, however, but the RCC still teaches against Scripture alone, faith alone, not of works, etc.  


libby said:


> The Leviticus passage is about the work of a priest for atonement of sin.  This is a ritual prescribed by God Almighty, not for forgiveness, but for discipline/expiation/paying your debt to society/temporal punishment/whatever you call it.  *You are 100% correct *that until Jesus lived, died and rose again there was no forgiveness in the eternal sense.  No one saw Heaven (save a few exceptions), but insofar as their humanity could, men had to expiate their sin.  The discipline necessary to satisfy Divine Justice.  I do not understand howcome this is so tough for you, it is right there in Scripture.  My only guess is that it reeks Catholicism and you just have to resist that to your dying breath no matter how much evidence is presented to you. Yes, I am speaking of Mt. 16.


Yes but that was then, not now. There is no need to "expiate" anymore. We can make amends if we feel the need to but in many cases we can't. What good would it be for me to "do penance" to someone I've wronged if he is dead? And praying to a dead person cannot ever make amends...
And reeks of Catholicism? No, it reeks of human effort (works) [legalism]. 


			
				libby said:
			
		

> Whoa!  You are sounding kinda Catholic here.  Does this make you a mediator?  Blasphemy!
> So if your version is true then tell me your version of Ananias, Sapphira and Simon the Magician.  If the Apostles accepted these people into the community of believers, the Apostles effected their forgiveness through their ministry, explain to me why Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead?  Were they not saved, or did they suffer temporal punishment for their sin?
> What of Simon?  If the Apostles had effected his forgiveness, how is it his heart was not "upright" before the Lord?  Wasn't Jesus' Sacrifice sufficient to cover his sin?
> The Bible does not say that the Apostles "retained" the sins of these three.  You guys have a problem here.


I already answered this one; you must have missed it but, just for you, I'll repeat it. (Love is tough).
It does not say anywhere that Ananias & Sapphira were saved or lost. Acts 4v32 says that "all the *believers* were one in heart and mind". Doesn't necessarily include Ananias & Sapphira. It could, but we can't be sure. They might have been believers and God could still have struck them dead. 
Luke might have assumed that they were but Peter possibly saw that their faith was only a "said" faith. 
Same with Simon. Just because he believed what Philip said and was baptized, doesn't always mean true regeneration of that person. Maybe he was saved and just mis-spoke or maybe he wasn't saved. Note that Peter said: "...your heart is not right before God...I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin." Sounds like he believed in his head but not in his heart. This is why we have to be careful what we read into these types of passages. We can't just assume someone is saved because they believe in God. Remember, Satan believes in God; the true God and the true Jesus but he isn't saved. This is just not a good passage to use to relate to Matthew 16. 
This is why I challenge soo many dis-illusioned people on here Libby. I know full well that a lot of people on this very forum THINK they're saved but will be severely disappointed on Judgment Day. I am definitely "innocent of the blood of everyone" on here for that reason.


----------



## Highlander

ItalianScallion said:


> Sorry to hear about your _loving_ family. You can continue to be my niece but you need to listen to your Uncle Bill more.
> How could I have had a "lousy Catholic upbringing"??? They taught me the same things they taught you. And, where is my prejudice, niecey?
> You said: "No matter how much you do any of the Catholic rituals, you aren't saved if you don't believe that Jesus is your savior"??? This sounds very contradictory to what you've said earlier. I like to hear you say this stuff, however, but the RCC still teaches against Scripture alone, faith alone, not of works, etc.
> 
> Yes but that was then, not now. There is no need to "expiate" anymore. We can make amends if we feel the need to but in many cases we can't. What good would it be for me to "do penance" to someone I've wronged if he is dead? And praying to a dead person cannot ever make amends...
> And reeks of Catholicism? No, it reeks of human effort (works) [legalism].
> 
> I already answered this one; you must have missed it but, just for you, I'll repeat it. (Love is tough).
> It does not say anywhere that Ananias & Sapphira were saved or lost. Acts 4v32 says that "all the *believers* were one in heart and mind". Doesn't necessarily include Ananias & Sapphira. It could, but we can't be sure. They might have been believers and God could still have struck them dead.
> Luke might have assumed that they were but Peter possibly saw that their faith was only a "said" faith.
> Same with Simon. Just because he believed what Philip said and was baptized, doesn't always mean true regeneration of that person. Maybe he was saved and just mis-spoke or maybe he wasn't saved. Note that Peter said: "...your heart is not right before God...I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin." Sounds like he believed in his head but not in his heart. This is why we have to be careful what we read into these types of passages. We can't just assume someone is saved because they believe in God. Remember, Satan believes in God; the true God and the true Jesus but he isn't saved. This is just not a good passage to use to relate to Matthew 16.
> This is why I challenge soo many dis-illusioned people on here Libby. I know full well that a lot of people on this very forum THINK they're saved but will be severely disappointed on Judgment Day. I am definitely "innocent of the blood of everyone" on here for that reason.



A few questions for the Born agains...

1.  Do you get a new birth ceritficate?  Do you keep the old one?
2.  How does all that work when it comes to driving, drinking, etc?  If you are born again at age 20, do you have to wait until you are 36 to get your license?


----------



## camily

Highlander said:


> A few questions for the Born agains...
> 
> 1.  Do you get a new birth ceritficate?  Do you keep the old one?
> 2.  How does all that work when it comes to driving, drinking, etc?  If you are born again at age 20, do you have to wait until you are 36 to get your license?



You're an idiot.


----------



## Highlander

camily said:


> You're an idiot.



You're a bigger idiot! So, THERE!


----------



## ItalianScallion

Highlander said:


> A few questions for the Born agains...
> 
> 1.  Do you get a new birth ceritficate?  Do you keep the old one?
> 2.  How does all that work when it comes to driving, drinking, etc?  If you are born again at age 20, do you have to wait until you are 36 to get your license?


No, unlike Obama's, the original one is valid...
No, I'm "grandfathered in". Plus, I have good dark facial hair so I can pass for 21 and cover up my youthfulness on my drivers license.


----------

